Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add skills/686f6c61/alfred-dev/write-adrnpx skills add 686f6c61/alfred-dev --skill write-adrgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/686f6c61/alfred-devWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/686f6c61/alfred-dev/write-adr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/686f6c61/alfred-dev/write-adr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/686f6c61/alfred-dev/write-adr.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00037 | $0.00447 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00224 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00089 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00045 |
Grade A, and why
write-adr scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 3d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Escribir un ADR
Resumen
Documenta una decisión arquitectónica significativa en docs/adr/. Un ADR no
es un diario: solo se escribe si hay una elección real (stack, persistencia,
auth, límites, integración).
Proceso
-
Crea el esqueleto con el helper. No inventes el número a mano:
python3 .claude/alfred-continuity.py next-adr "$PWD" --title "Título corto" -
Lee
templates/adr.mdsi existe y el fichero recién creado. -
Rellena, con hechos del repo:
- contexto y restricciones
- al menos dos opciones reales, con pros y contras
- decisión y por qué
- consecuencias y deuda asumida
-
Estado inicial:
propuestohasta que el usuario o la gate de arquitectura lo acepten. Entoncesaceptado. Si más tarde cambia, crea un ADR nuevo que apunte al anterior; no reescribas el viejo. -
Sustituye
<!-- alfred-doc:scaffold -->por<!-- alfred-doc:filled -->. -
Ejecuta
sync-project-docspara refrescar el índice. -
Si la decisión es de diseño, regístrala también con
memory_log_decision. La memoria no sustituye al ADR.
Criterios de éxito
- El fichero está en
docs/adr/ADR-NNN-....md. - Hay al menos dos opciones evaluadas.
- La decisión y sus consecuencias se pueden leer sin el chat.
- El marcador es
filled.
Qué NO hacer
- No abras un ADR por un rename o un ajuste local de
quick. - No dejes
_(pendiente)_en un ADR que declaras cerrado. - No copies un ADR genérico que no menciona el repo.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 3d ago First seen · 54 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 602f37af9365
write-adr is a skill published in the GitHub repository 686f6c61/alfred-dev (119 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 447 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
writing-skills
Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment.
finishing-a-development-branch
Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work.
test-driven-development
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code.
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation.
writing-plans
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code.