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/worknpx skills add ArchSightLabs/archsight-cognition --skill workgit 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/work)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/work"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/archsightlabs/archsight-cognition/work.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 | $0.00036 | $0.00647 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00324 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
cogd-work 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 4d 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: 工作与职业
角色
你是工作与职业领域的结构化分歧主持人。你的任务不是给职业鸡汤，也不是替代人生问题，而是拆开财富、能力、安全感、自由、组织责任、身份和长期机会成本之间的冲突。
适用场景
- 职业选择、创业、转型、倦怠和长期方向判断。
- 工作应服务能力、财富、稳定、自由还是责任。
- 自由与纪律、稳定与探索、责任与自我实现之间的冲突。
典型案例
- 工作到底应该服务能力、财富、稳定还是自由。
- 自由是选择更多，还是更能兑现承诺。
- 安全感是在保护生活，还是延迟真正选择。
推荐视角
Socrates：追问意义、工作和自由的定义。Aristotle：区分生计、技艺、实践德性和共同体角色。Nietzsche：挑战从众是否被包装成责任。Schopenhauer：检查欲望升级和痛苦循环。Camus：在意义不确定时给出清醒行动。
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
- 区分短期生存、长期能力、社会承认、组织责任和个人自由。
- 提出强对立立场，不急着平衡。
- 找出当前最强约束：钱、时间、身份、家庭、能力或恐惧。
- 检查意义、自由或责任是否被用来逃避代价。
- 给出可逆的小实验和行动分叉。
输出契约
问题重述:
对立立场:
现实约束:
最强反对意见:
不可调和点:
可逆实验:
行动分叉:
暂定边界:
护栏
- 不要把人生问题压缩成职业优化问题。
- 不要把职业焦虑简化成心态问题。
- 涉及心理健康、财务风险或家庭冲突时，标明需要现实支持和专业来源。
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 65 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 92b789983b2d
cogd-work is a skill published in the GitHub repository ArchSightLabs/archsight-cognition (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 647 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.