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 AlexZio00/sovereign-skills --skill scopegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AlexZio00/sovereign-skillsWrote 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/alexzio00/sovereign-skills/scope)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alexzio00/sovereign-skills/scope"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexzio00/sovereign-skills/scope/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/alexzio00/sovereign-skills/scope"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexzio00/sovereign-skills/scope.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 4 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Anti-Refusal · line 241 Skill instructs the agent to omit warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Stripping safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.Fix: Remove instructions that suppress warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Let the agent surface safety-relevant caveats to the user.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 244 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Rogue Agent · line 123 Skill establishes unauthorized persistence across sessions via cron jobs, startup scripts, or state files. Session persistence allows an attacker to maintain access beyond the current interaction.Fix: Remove any persistence mechanisms (cron jobs, startup scripts, state files). Skills should not maintain state across sessions without explicit user consent.
- medium Rogue Agent · line 153 Skill establishes unauthorized persistence across sessions via cron jobs, startup scripts, or state files. Session persistence allows an attacker to maintain access beyond the current interaction.Fix: Remove any persistence mechanisms (cron jobs, startup scripts, state files). Skills should not maintain state across sessions without explicit user consent.
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 | $0.00115 | $0.03711 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00057 | $0.01855 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00742 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00371 |
Grade A, and why
scope 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 263 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/scope — Scope Definition Engine v1.0
Unified brief + specify. Lock down "what you will do and what you will NOT do" before implementation. Quick (default) = IN/OUT lock + BRIEF.md. Full = L0→L4 layer chain + spec.md.
Dominant Variable
Is the Scope OUT section explicitly written? — IN alone causes scope creep during implementation. OUT must be explicit to lock it. In Full mode, additionally L2 decision clarity is the dominant variable.
Trigger
/scope(Quick default)/scope full(Full mode)/brief(Quick backward compat)/specify(Full backward compat)- "scope this", "스펙 잡아줘", "범위 잡아줘", "기획 정리해줘"
- "spec 만들어", "스펙 만들어", "plan this"
Discard If
- Bug fix, 1-file edit → implement directly
- BRIEF.md/spec.md already exists → use Edit
- Exploration only → delegate to brainstorming
Key Assumptions
- Project CLAUDE.md exists (existing projects) — if broken: can't auto-scan constraints, write from user input only.
- User provides idea/requirement in ≥1 sentence — if broken: ask "Tell me in one sentence what to build" once.
Mode Selection
| Mode | Trigger | Output | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quick (default) | /scope, /brief |
BRIEF.md | Feature add, clear change |
| Full | /scope full, /specify |
specs/{name}/spec.md | Architecture change, multi-module, complex design |
Unsure? Start Quick → if user wants more detail: "Shall we switch to full mode?"
Quick Mode — IN/OUT Brief
Step 1: Detect project
- Existing project: CLAUDE.md, package.json etc. exist → 2-level Glob + keyword Grep (10-file cap)
- New project: skip
Step 2: Ambiguity score gating
Score clarity across 4 dimensions (0-10 each), by judgment.
| Dimension | Check |
|---|---|
| Function | What behavior is being added/changed — are inputs/outputs concrete? |
| Boundary | What is explicitly excluded — is IN/OUT clear? |
| Verification | How is "done" verified — is there a measurable criterion? |
| Assumptions | Any hidden assumptions — dependencies on existing system/data/environment? |
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 Changed · +5 lines cdf59cc8c76f
- 11d ago First seen · 258 lines · 115 tokens per session scan A e65d26ec3eaa
scope is a skill published in the GitHub repository AlexZio00/sovereign-skills (128 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 115 tokens to every session and 3,711 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
nobrainer-review
Use when the owner says nb-review, deep-audit, deep-code-review, or deep-autoreview; explicitly requests an evidence-gated CLOSEOUT, adversarial BUGHUNT or RELEASEGATE; or needs final findings filtered to verified actionable defects. Use nobrainer-build for ordinary implementation and correction work.
sdd-tasks
Break an SDD change into implementation tasks. Trigger: orchestrator launches task planning for a change.
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
ap-juror
Report the compatibility redirect to ap-independent-checker; this retired role cannot perform new work.
ijfw-cross-audit
Generate a cross-platform multi-model audit (Trident) on a diff, brief, or artifact. Trigger: 'cross audit', 'Trident', 'second opinion', 'check with other models', 'check with other AIs', 'cross-check this', 'get another perspective', /cross-audit.
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high (production, security-sensitive logic, irreversible operations), or any time a confident output would be cheaper to verify now…