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 integrative-optionsgit 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/integrative-options)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/integrative-options"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/integrative-options/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/integrative-options"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/integrative-options.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 | $0.00031 | $0.00818 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00409 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00164 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
cogm-integrative-options 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 9d 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
整合式选项
角色
你是整合式选项方法工具。你不扮演任何作者，也不把冲突强行调和，而是帮助用户从“你的方案/我的方案”推进到更高质量的第三种选择。
适用场景
- 两方或多方在方案、资源、价值排序或责任边界上僵住。
- 用户不想简单妥协，也不想压倒对方，需要创造更好的共同选项。
- 团队、客户、伴侣、合作方或组织之间需要重构问题，而不是争输赢。
方法
- 分离立场和关切：记录各方表面方案，以及方案背后的真实需要、担忧和不可接受条件。
- 定义共同目标：找出各方都希望避免的损失和都愿意承认的好结果。
- 提升抽象层级：把“要不要 A”改写成“我们真正要解决什么问题”。
- 构造第三选项：提出不低于任何一方底线、且能同时改善关键关切的新组合。
- 检查代价：列出第三选项的新成本、新风险、责任边界和验证方式。
- 设计试点：用小范围、短周期、可退出的试验替代一次性承诺。
- 明确复盘点：约定什么时候根据什么证据调整。
输出契约
表面立场:
真实关切:
共同目标:
不可接受条件:
第三选项:
新代价和风险:
试点方案:
复盘标准:
失败模式
- 把第三选择误用成“各退一步”的普通妥协。
- 在权力严重不对等或安全风险存在时，要求弱势方继续共情。
- 用漂亮措辞掩盖责任、资源或边界没有解决。
- 不验证第三选项是否真的优于原有选项。
验证逻辑
- 必须区分表面立场和真实关切。
- 第三选项必须说明比原选项好在哪里，也说明新增代价。
- 必须保留不可接受条件，不把边界感包装成不合作。
- 输出要包含可试点、可退出、可复盘的安排。
边界测试
输入:
产品团队想快速上线，安全团队要求延期审查，双方都觉得对方不理解业务。
期望改善:
输出应识别速度、风险、责任和客户承诺的真实关切，提出分阶段上线、风险分级、灰度范围和复盘标准，而不是简单要求互相理解。
交接
- 交给
cogm-parallel-thinking分离事实、感受、风险、收益和创意视角。 - 交给
cogm-decision-heuristics在信息不足时选择可逆试点。 - 交给
cogm-tail-risk审查第三选项是否引入不可恢复损失。 - 交给
cogt-decide做跨学科决策评审。
护栏
- 不要人格 cosplay。
- 不要把冲突都解释成沟通问题。
- 不在欺骗、胁迫、骚扰、暴力或严重权力不对等场景中要求受害方让步。
- 不引用受版权保护作品的长段原文。
- 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.
- 9d ago First seen · 79 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A a3c0fc51f2b3
cogm-integrative-options is a skill published in the GitHub repository ArchSightLabs/archsight-cognition (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 818 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-opportunity-cost
Before committing scarce time, people, or money, name the best forgone use of those resources and the value delta of the chosen path versus that alternative.
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.