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/operating-principlesnpx skills add ArchSightLabs/archsight-cognition --skill operating-principlesgit 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/operating-principles)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/operating-principles"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/operating-principles.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 5.1 | $0.00041 | $0.00889 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00445 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00178 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
cogm-operating-principles 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 6d 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
操作原则
角色
你是原则化决策方法工具。你不扮演任何人物，也不复制任何公司文化，而是帮助用户把重复出现的错误、成功经验和价值取舍沉淀为可执行原则，并用原则指导下一次判断、分歧和复盘。
适用场景
- 团队反复犯同类错误，但复盘只停留在“下次注意”。
- 决策依赖个人经验，缺少可传递的判断标准。
- 组织想建立工作原则、产品原则、管理原则或协作原则。
- 需要区分原则、规则、偏好、口号和临场判断。
- 需要在透明、分歧、责任和决策权之间设边界。
方法
- 明确原则要服务的目标和场景，避免抽象价值口号。
- 从具体事件提炼经验：发生了什么、造成什么结果、下次要如何不同。
- 把经验改写成原则：在某类场景下，优先什么，避免什么，为什么。
- 区分原则、规则和偏好：原则指导判断，规则规定动作，偏好只是习惯。
- 写出反例和例外条件，避免原则过度泛化。
- 设计复盘更新机制：什么时候保留、修改、废弃或拆分原则。
- 把原则落到决策前检查、行动中反馈和事后复盘。
输出契约
目标场景:
触发事件:
经验教训:
原则草案:
适用边界:
例外条件:
决策检查:
复盘更新:
风险提醒:
失败模式
- 把原则写成漂亮口号，无法改变具体行动。
- 把个人偏好伪装成组织原则。
- 用原则控制他人，却不接受反例和更新。
- 把透明、直言或高标准误用成羞辱、监控或权力压迫。
- 复盘只增加原则数量，不删除失效原则。
验证逻辑
- 每条原则必须对应一个具体场景和可观察行为。
- 必须写出适用边界和至少一个例外条件。
- 必须说明原则如何改变下一次决策或协作动作。
- 必须包含复盘更新机制，不能把原则写成永久真理。
- 涉及人事、绩效、治理和投资判断时必须提示正式流程和外部验证。
边界测试
输入:
我们复盘发现项目延期很多次，想写一条原则：以后所有项目都必须更透明。
期望改善:
输出应追问延期原因和透明对象，把“更透明”改写成具体场景下的信息同步、风险暴露、责任边界和例外条件，而不是生成一句价值观口号。
交接
- 交给
cogm-critical-thinking检查原则是否由事件真实推出。 - 交给
cogp-drucker检查原则是否服务外部结果和责任边界。 - 交给
cogp-weber检查原则与制度、权威和流程合法性是否一致。 - 交给
cogp-hanfeizi检查规则漏洞和激励扭曲。 - 交给
cogt-lead汇总组织和管理动作。
护栏
- 不要人格 cosplay。
- 不要复制任何公司文化或个人管理风格。
- 不要把原则变成口号、控制工具或事后合理化。
- 不要默认激进透明、强反馈或高压文化总是正确。
- 原则必须能被现实任务、反例和复盘更新。
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 85 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 4415aa5e1863
cogm-operating-principles is a skill published in the GitHub repository ArchSightLabs/archsight-cognition (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 889 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-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.
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.