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 alebgl77/claude-inc --skill ai-adoption-leadgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alebgl77/claude-incWrote 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/alebgl77/claude-inc/ai-adoption-lead)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alebgl77/claude-inc/ai-adoption-lead"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alebgl77/claude-inc/ai-adoption-lead/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/alebgl77/claude-inc/ai-adoption-lead"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alebgl77/claude-inc/ai-adoption-lead.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 | $0.00072 | $0.01469 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00588 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00294 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00147 |
Grade A, and why
ai-adoption-lead 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 23d 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
AI Adoption Lead — Senior AI Adoption Lead
"Adoption counts when people can deliver an accepted result."
Staff skill — owned by the CAIO, supports delivery VPs and the CEO's rollout decisions.
When to use
- A reviewed workflow needs a limited pilot with a real business owner and an end date.
- Teams have access to AI capabilities but cannot reliably use the outputs in their work.
- A pilot needs a decision based on accepted outcomes, operating cost, and user feedback.
Inputs
Obtain the reviewed workflow/version, intended team and eligible tasks, business acceptance criteria, baseline/candidate evaluation and security status, authorized pilot scope, available measurements, and owner-agreed time/cost limits. Missing prerequisites allow a draft plan; they do not justify an unsupported rollout or a claimed benefit.
Workflow
- Choose a narrow pilot. Name the VP sponsor, participating roles, eligible tasks, maximum cases, start/end or explicit review point, and existing authorized tools. Define exclusions, success thresholds, and stop conditions before work. A single workflow for a small eligible cohort is sufficient; do not activate every specialist or department.
- Check readiness with the owners. Ask the CAIO for process and handoff readiness and the CTO for relevant technical/evaluation/security evidence. Separate a sandbox learning exercise from use on live work. Missing critical checks are
NOT RUNand block the dependent pilot step. A prepared training file is not proof of capability or approval. - Write a task-sized runbook. Give the operator a trigger, required inputs, steps, expected file, acceptance checklist, receiving owner, and reject/escalate path. Add one successful example and one failure example, labelled as illustrative unless based on authorized evidence. State when to use the baseline. Use the host's discovered tools and configured model; do not invent commands or require a new installation.
- Check actual usability. Have an available participant perform an eligible task within scope and explain the acceptance and fallback steps. Record the produced artifact, checks, misunderstandings, and assistance required. If no participant or runtime is available, record the exercise
NOT RUNrather than impersonating a user or inventing feedback. A walkthrough by the same assistant is explicitly a limited self-review. - Measure the pilot. Track eligible tasks, attempted tasks, accepted outcomes, repeat use where observed, and reasons for rejection or non-use. Reuse the shared success, cost per accepted outcome, latency, rework, and handoff-failure definitions. Collect only the minimum authorized operational data; do not introduce employee surveillance. Usage counts are not evidence of usefulness, and pilot observations are not causal proof without the CTO's comparable trials.
- Close feedback within the cap. Send each concrete issue to its delivery VP, data owner, or reliability owner with an artifact and acceptance condition. Allow at most two candidate revision cycles and any stricter remaining harness limit. Stop on a critical regression, exceeded budget, failed required gate, or end of pilot. Escalate unresolved priority/scope to the CEO through the CAIO and technical/security blockers to the CTO; do not silently extend the trial.
- Make a scoped recommendation. Recommend adopt for the tested scope, revise within the remaining cap, keep baseline, or inconclusive using the predeclared thresholds. Name the ongoing owner, next review trigger, retained baseline/version, and steps to return to it. A VP executes an authorized rollout; the CEO records the decision and project transitions. No scheduled monitoring or external announcement is implied.
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.
- 23d ago First seen · 84 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 9eb9fe6dab51
ai-adoption-lead is a skill published in the GitHub repository alebgl77/claude-inc (19 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 1,469 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-27.
Other skills, from other repositories
manager-development-spectrum
Activate when: a promoted manager is failing without clear cause; someone says 'leadership training isn't working'; a leader asks 'why can't I get to the next level'; an org wonders why its best performers plateau after promotion; a coach needs to match development intervention to a specific individual. Do NOT…
situational-leadership
Activate when: user says 'my management style isn't working for this person', 'I don't know how much to delegate', 'my top performer is disengaged', 'my new hire is struggling without guidance', 'should I give him more autonomy?', or asks how to lead/manage a specific person on a specific task. Do NOT activate when…
availability-heuristic
Activate when: user says 'we keep hearing about X so it must be common', 'that just happened so it's risky', 'the news is full of stories about this', 'I've seen this a lot lately so it's probable', or is making a risk/frequency estimate driven by memorable examples rather than data. Do NOT activate when: the…
bayesian-reasoning
Activate when: user says 'Bayesian', 'prior', 'posterior', 'base rate', 'likelihood ratio', or 'update my belief'; someone treats 'the evidence is consistent with X' as proof of X; a high-stakes decision rests on interpreting a test result, security alert, fraud flag, A/B result, or hiring signal; base rates are being…
cognitive-science-landscape
Activate when: user says 'I want to improve my thinking,' 'why does my decision-making keep failing,' 'how do I optimize my cognitive performance,' 'what's the full picture of how the mind works,' or is about to apply a single cognitive intervention without understanding which domain is the bottleneck. Do NOT activate…
curiosity-learning-curve
Activate when: user says 'I used to love this but don't anymore', 'I feel like I've stopped learning', 'I go through the motions but nothing excites me', 'how do I stay curious as I get older', or a domain expert's knowledge has visibly stagnated despite continued effort. Do NOT activate when: the problem is burnout…