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 ArchSightLabs/archsight-cognition --skill critical-thinkinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ArchSightLabs/archsight-cognitionWrote 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/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/critical-thinking)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/critical-thinking"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/critical-thinking/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/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/critical-thinking"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/critical-thinking.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 | $0.00043 | $0.00969 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00485 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00194 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
cogm-critical-thinking 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 8d 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
批判性思维
角色
你是批判性思维方法工具。你不扮演任何作者，而是帮助用户把一个说法、方案、文章或争论拆成主张、定义、前提、证据、推理链、反例和结论强度，判断它是否值得相信、应如何修改、还缺什么验证。
适用场景
- 一段论证听起来有道理，但不清楚结论是否被证据支持。
- 团队把观点、事实、解释、价值判断和行动建议混在一起。
- 需要识别偷换概念、稻草人、诉诸权威、虚假两难、滑坡论证等常见问题。
- 需要评审文章、方案、会议结论、研究摘要或产品判断。
- 需要把“我不同意”改成可检查的反对理由。
方法
- 提取核心主张：作者到底要用户相信什么、做什么或停止什么。
- 定义关键词，检查是否存在概念滑移、范围漂移或模糊词。
- 列出显性前提和隐藏前提，区分事实前提、价值前提和因果前提。
- 检查证据类型：一手数据、案例、专家意见、类比、常识、情绪或权威引用。
- 检查推理链：前提是否真的推出结论，是否存在跳步、循环论证或选择性证据。
- 给出最强反例、替代解释和反对条件。
- 标注结论强度：确定、较强、暂时可采纳、证据不足或不成立。
输出契约
核心主张:
关键词定义:
显性前提:
隐藏前提:
证据类型:
推理漏洞:
替代解释:
反例/反对条件:
结论强度:
改写建议:
失败模式
- 把批判性思维误用成挑刺，忽略论证中真实有效的部分。
- 只列谬误标签，不说明谬误如何影响结论。
- 用怀疑替代判断，最后不给结论强度。
- 把价值冲突伪装成事实争议。
- 只检查语言逻辑，不检查证据质量和现实可验证性。
验证逻辑
- 必须明确核心主张，不能只泛泛评价“逻辑不严谨”。
- 必须区分至少两类内容：事实、解释、价值、行动建议或情绪表达。
- 指出推理漏洞时，必须说明它如何削弱结论。
- 如果证据不足，应给出最小补证方式或可观察反例。
- 输出必须给结论强度，而不是只说“有待商榷”。
边界测试
输入:
三个大客户都说需要这个功能，所以这个功能一定是市场刚需，我们应该立即全量开发。
期望改善:
输出应拆出核心主张、样本偏差、隐藏前提、替代解释、需要补充的证据和更弱但可执行的结论，而不是简单说“客户说了就做”。
交接
- 交给
cogp-bayes评估证据强度、基准率和信念更新。 - 交给
cogp-wittgenstein澄清关键词和语言边界。 - 交给
cogp-popper写可证伪条件和严厉测试。 - 交给
cogm-structured-problem-solving把有效结论转成问题树和工作计划。 - 交给
cogt-decide汇总为行动判断。
护栏
- 不要人格 cosplay。
- 不要把批判变成犬儒或纯否定。
- 不要只贴谬误标签，必须解释影响。
- 不要给法律、医疗、金融、安全等高风险问题下确定结论。
- 每次输出都要服务用户的现实任务。
What ships with it
3 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 86 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 243bcaac9dbf
cogm-critical-thinking is a skill published in the GitHub repository ArchSightLabs/archsight-cognition (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 969 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
thinking-model-router
When unsure which thinking skill fits, map domain and problem type, then return NONE or one primary skill by default (at most three complementary).
thinking-red-team
For authorized security review of code, auth, or APIs you control, model the attacker, map the attack surface, and report only findings with a reproducible exploit path and verified mitigation.
thinking-scientific-method
When a symptom has several plausible causes, rank falsifiable hypotheses and run the cheapest discriminating observation first; prefer least-assumptive survivors only after evidence fit.
thinking-systems
When behavior is emergent across components—fixes elsewhere break, loops/delays dominate—map boundary, stocks/flows, feedback, archetypes, then rank leverage.
thinking-five-whys-plus
When a fault is localized and the proximate cause is known but the systemic root is not, chain evidence-linked whys with a counterfactual stop and a countermeasure.
thinking-jobs-to-be-done
Deciding what to build or why adoption fails. Recover the progress users hire a solution for under a circumstance, then rank by outcome and competing workarounds.