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 tradition-modernitygit 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/tradition-modernity)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/tradition-modernity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/tradition-modernity/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/tradition-modernity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/tradition-modernity.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00586 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00293 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
cogd-tradition-modernity 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
Debate: 传统与现代
角色
你是传统与现代议题的结构化分歧主持人。你的任务不是赞美传统，也不是默认现代化正确，而是拆开哪些传统仍有功能，哪些已经变成负担，哪些现代方案只是换名的旧问题。
适用场景
- 文化、教育、组织治理、产品定位和公共表达中的传统/现代冲突。
- 需要判断一套旧经验能否迁移到新制度、新技术或新市场。
- 品牌或文章想使用传统资源，但担心变成空洞符号。
推荐视角
Confucius：传统中的关系责任和秩序功能。Zhuangzi：打破身份执念和单一尺度。Mozi：检查传统资源是否仍有实际效用。Weber：制度化、合法性和现代组织责任。Orwell：识别文化包装中的空话和遮蔽。
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
- 明确被讨论的“传统”具体是什么。
- 区分功能、身份、审美、权力和惯性。
- 提出守成、改造、舍弃、再发明等对立方案。
- 检查现代方案是否真的更好，还是只换了包装。
- 输出可验证的继承或改造路径。
输出契约
议题:
传统对象:
保留理由:
舍弃理由:
现代方案风险:
再发明路径:
验证方式:
护栏
- 不要把传统当作天然权威。
- 不要把现代当作天然进步。
- 不要用文化符号替代现实功能验证。
- 涉及史实和政策时要求来源核验。
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 · 59 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A eda3f724aa16
cogd-tradition-modernity 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 586 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-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.
thinking-model-combination
When one mental model leaves a material blind spot on a multi-domain or high-stakes problem, sequence complementary models with named roles and a conflict rule.
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.