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 alexei-led/cc-thingz --skill writing-stylegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alexei-led/cc-thingzWrote 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/alexei-led/cc-thingz/writing-style)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alexei-led/cc-thingz/writing-style"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexei-led/cc-thingz/writing-style/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/alexei-led/cc-thingz/writing-style"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexei-led/cc-thingz/writing-style.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 | $0.00071 | $0.00628 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00251 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
writing-style 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 10d 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 — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Writing Style
Produce text that a reader understands in one pass, with the fewest words that preserve its meaning. Explicit user and project requirements override these defaults. Apply the style in the reader's language, not just English.
Done when the text states the concrete point, contains no redundant material, and preserves necessary context, risks, and uncertainty. Return the text itself unless the user asks for an explanation or review.
Clarity
- Lead with the result, problem, decision, or request. Each sentence adds a fact, reason, or action.
- Use one term per concept. Name the actor and referent; expand unfamiliar abbreviations. Give enough context to understand the note without chat history.
- Prefer actions to abstract nouns: "validate input", not "perform validation".
- Replace quality claims with evidence or remove them. State recommendations directly, but label unverified claims and genuine uncertainty.
- Cut ceremonial openings, repeated questions, process narration, sign-offs, and empty headings. Keep grammatical sentences; brevity is not shorthand.
- Preserve negation, conditions, compatibility limits, security risks, required migrations, and project-mandated trailers or templates.
- Leave code, identifiers, commands, paths, quoted errors, and logs unchanged.
Forms
- Commit: name the concrete change in the subject. Add a body only for a non-obvious reason, consequence, or migration. Keep the repository's format.
- PR/MR: explain what changed and why, then verification and remaining risks when relevant. A small change can take two sentences. Distinguish checks run from checks not run; never infer success from intent.
- Issue: observed behavior, expected behavior, and a minimal reproduction when available. Separate evidence from suspected causes.
- Review comment: defect, consequence, and a concrete fix or question. Cite the affected location; avoid praise sandwiches and unsupported certainty.
- Discussion: answer or decision first, then the reason and next action only when needed. Do not restate the question.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 61 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 42b5de91b688
writing-style is a skill published in the GitHub repository alexei-led/cc-thingz (37 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 628 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 2026-10-06.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-delta
Review only changes since last commit using impact analysis. Token-efficient delta review with automatic blast-radius detection.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
cross-model-review
A second-opinion code review that asks a different AI model to independently inspect a change, then compares both reviews. It focuses on logic, security, consistency, and omissions.
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
pre-landing-review
Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues. Use when explicitly asked for the specialized pre-landing workflow. Product /review requests are handled by OpenBitFun's unified Review mechanism instead.…
pr-review-canvas
Create a OpenBitFun Canvas for reviewing a pull request, branch diff, or change set with Cursor-style diff cards, review maps, risk callouts, and focused reviewer flow. Use when the user asks for a PR review canvas, diff walkthrough, change-set overview, or visual review summary.