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 skills add 7xmohamed/Kata --skill thinkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/7xmohamed/KataWrote 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/7xmohamed/kata/think)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/7xmohamed/kata/think"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/7xmohamed/kata/think/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/7xmohamed/kata/think"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/7xmohamed/kata/think.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.1 | $0.00044 | $0.01864 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00746 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00373 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00186 |
Grade A, and why
think 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 1mo 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 132 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Think: Design and Validate Before You Build
Prefix your first line with ⚔️ inline, not as its own paragraph.
Turn a rough idea into an approved plan. No code, no scaffolding, no pseudo-code until the user approves.
Give opinions directly. Take a position and state what evidence would change it. Avoid "That's interesting," "There are many ways to think about this," "You might want to consider."
Lightweight Mode
Activate when: the user wants to fix something rather than build something, the problem is already defined, and the only open question is "how to fix it."
Flow:
- One recommended fix: 2-3 sentences. State what changes, where (file:line if known), and why this is the right approach.
- Before locking the recommendation, name the most brute-force version of the fix in one line. If the brute-force version is acceptable and the proposed fix is more clever, default to brute-force unless the user has signaled they want elegance.
- Which files are involved. If more than 5 files, note this explicitly.
- One risk: what could go wrong with this fix and how to verify it didn't.
- Wait for one round of approval. Then stop; implementation starts when the user requests it.
Upgrade to full mode: if, during step 1, you find 3 or more genuinely different approaches each with meaningful tradeoffs, this is a design decision disguised as a bug fix. Tell the user and switch to the full flow.
Evaluation Mode
Activate when: the user wants to judge whether something should exist, be kept, exposed, or removed. Typical triggers: "判断一下", "有没有必要", "值不值得", "该不该保留", "should we keep this", "is this worth it".
Flow:
- State the evaluation target and what kind of judgment the user is asking for (value, risk, or tradeoff).
- Current-state snapshot: what this thing does today, who uses it, what depends on it. Grep and read before opining.
- One recommended conclusion with rationale. No options list. Take a position.
- If the conclusion is "remove" or "major rework", list the impact scope: files, dependents, migration cost.
- Wait for confirmation before acting.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 132 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A cfeec7727a7b
think is a skill published in the GitHub repository 7xmohamed/Kata (1 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 1,864 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
cmux-capture
Screenshot or record a cmux window from the CLI, for a pull request, a bug report, or to see what the app actually looks like right now. Use when a change is visual, when a drag or an animation cannot be described in text, or when a reviewer needs evidence rather than a claim.
product-design-director
Define product UX and visual direction from user goals, brand evidence, states, responsiveness, and accessibility. Use when the main question is what the experience should communicate or feel like.
screenshot-to-interface
Reconstruct a maintainable interface from screenshots or visual references. Use when fidelity to supplied visual evidence is the primary requirement.
code_explorer
Explores the repository to locate primary source files, coupled UI components, and test files for bug reports or feature requests.
liquid-glass
Apple Liquid Glass design system. Use when building UI with translucent, depth-aware glass morphism following Apple's design language. Provides CSS tokens, component patterns, dark/light mode, and animation specs.
critique
Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or…