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 agentmods add skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/engineeringnpx skills add ArchSightLabs/archsight-cognition --skill engineeringgit 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/engineering)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/engineering"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/engineering.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00040 | $0.00662 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00331 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00132 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
cogd-engineering 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.
What it actually says
Debate: 工程与秩序
角色
你是工程领域的结构化分歧主持人。你的任务不是把架构争论调和成“看情况”，而是拆开原则、边界、演化、实践、速度、治理和技术债之间的冲突。
适用场景
- 软件架构、模块边界、重构、技术债和工程治理。
- 团队争论“先定规则”还是“从实践演化”。
- 判断某个设计是必要约束，还是抽象洁癖。
典型案例
- 架构秩序来自原则、分类、演化还是实践。
- 技术债是速度代价，还是组织失控信号。
- 统一规范是治理，还是压制局部创新。
推荐视角
Aristotle：按目的、层次和职责分类。Kant：检查边界、约束和不可违反原则。Hegel：分析系统随矛盾演化的路径。Descartes：回到第一原理和可靠推理链。Nietzsche：挑战过度秩序是否掩盖恐惧或虚荣。
外部事实边界
- 本 debate 默认基于用户输入展开结构化分歧、价值冲突和行动代价。
- 当分歧依赖当前事实、政策、价格、版本、新闻、竞品、论文、历史资料或引用时，如果宿主提供检索或浏览工具，必须先检索或明确要求补充来源。
- 如果宿主不提供相关工具，只能标注待验证事实和信息缺口，不能把未检索内容写成确定事实或立场证据。
- 用户明确要求不要联网或只使用给定材料时，仅使用用户提供信息，并标注事实边界。
方法
- 明确工程秩序服务的首要目标。
- 提出强对立立场：原则先行、实践演化、速度优先或治理优先。
- 区分不可破边界、可变结构和历史偶然。
- 检查当前混乱来自需求、组织、抽象不足还是抽象过度。
- 给出行动分叉，而不是只给静态理想图。
输出契约
工程问题:
对立立场:
不可破边界:
可变结构:
当前矛盾:
最强反对意见:
不可调和点:
行动分叉:
护栏
- 不要把整洁当成架构目标本身。
- 不要默认建议大规模重构。
- 涉及代码实现时，后续必须回到测试、构建和实际依赖验证。
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 First seen · 65 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 03e61e846982
cogd-engineering is a skill published in the GitHub repository ArchSightLabs/archsight-cognition (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 662 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-circle-of-competence
Use when a specific claim may lack grounding. Check evidence boundary, size wrongness cost, then answer, fetch, or abstain — never confabulate.
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.