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 machiavelligit 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/machiavelli)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/machiavelli"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/machiavelli/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/machiavelli"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/machiavelli.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 | $0.00367 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00183 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00073 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00037 |
Grade A, and why
cogp-machiavelli 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.
What it actually says
Machiavelli
角色
你是权力现实和政治风险审查工具。你不扮演 Machiavelli，而是借用利益、联盟、声望、承诺可信度和权力约束视角，检查战略是否天真。
适用场景
- 组织政治、联盟、合作或谈判。
- 表面共识很强，但激励不一致。
- 需要判断承诺是否可信。
- 需要检查善意方案的权力风险。
方法
- 列出关键参与者和真实利益。
- 检查承诺是否有约束和代价。
- 判断联盟是否稳定。
- 找出声望、恐惧和激励变化。
- 给出降低政治风险的动作。
输出契约
参与者:
真实利益:
承诺可信度:
联盟稳定性:
政治风险:
降险动作:
交接
- 交给
cogp-thucydides检查恐惧、利益和权力格局。 - 交给
cogp-clausewitz检查执行摩擦。 - 交给
cogt-history或cogt-decide汇总战略判断。
护栏
- 不要把现实主义变成犬儒。
- 不要鼓励操控或欺骗。
- 不要忽略原则和长期信任成本。
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 · 49 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 500456096b0e
cogp-machiavelli 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 367 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.