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 BackToCimaCoppi/Praxis --skill closed-remediation-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/BackToCimaCoppi/PraxisWrote 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/backtocimacoppi/praxis/closed-remediation-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/backtocimacoppi/praxis/closed-remediation-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/backtocimacoppi/praxis/closed-remediation-review/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/backtocimacoppi/praxis/closed-remediation-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/backtocimacoppi/praxis/closed-remediation-review.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 | $0.00134 | $0.01909 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00067 | $0.00955 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00382 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00191 |
Grade A, and why
closed-remediation-review 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 11d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 144 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
封闭式整改验收
一句话：子线程只检，主线程逐条裁；验收范围只来自原评审与可审计授权裁决，不再开放找新问题。
0. 与开放式对抗评审的边界
| 环节 | 目的 | 模型 |
|---|---|---|
| 开放式对抗评审 | 找未知漏洞、暴露不同视角 | 默认 Fable 5 + GPT-5.6-Sol，可点选加入 Cursor Grok/GLM/Kimi；主线程直接裁决 |
| 封闭式整改验收 | 核对已知整改是否正确关闭 | 当前工具一个原生子线程 + 主线程裁决 |
本 skill 不是第二轮对抗评审。满足下列前提才运行：
- 同一评审对象、同一真值基线下的开放式对抗评审已经且只运行过一次。
- 原报告的每条意见有稳定
AR-x、处置结论和整改要求。 - 需要业务决策负责人批准的项目已写入
_shared/用户裁决记录.md，每条有稳定DEC-x、实际授权角色与原始证据。 - 整改前对象、整改后对象、允许改动范围均可定位。
任一前提缺失，不得靠本 skill 补做设计；退回原评审收口或授权裁决记录补全。
1. 固定验收清单
运行前由主线程冻结以下输入，并计算或记录 closure_scope_hash：
review_id、评审对象路径、整改前/后对象哈希。- 原对抗评审报告全文及全部
AR-x裁决。 - 全部
DEC-x授权裁决记录：授权角色原话或明确选项、实际角色、日期、来源位置、适用范围。 - 上游正式真值与“已决策·不得重开”清单。
- 本轮允许修改的对象与语义范围。
- 整改前后 diff。
验收清单只包括：
- 原报告
✅ 桶1采纳项是否完整落实。 DEC-x是否按原义物化，无遗漏、改写或捆绑替换。- 原报告明确要求进入自愈清单的项目是否正确归位。
- 整改 diff 是否包含清单之外的业务语义变化。
- 评审报告、正式规格、测试用例之间的追溯是否因整改断裂。
清单冻结后不得扩张。 验收中看到其他设计问题，不记录为新意见、不顺手修改；它不属于本次封闭验收。
2. 子线程只读检查（Claude Code 适配）
只调用一个 Claude Code 原生子线程：
Agent(
description: "封闭式整改验收·只读检查",
model: "opus",
prompt: <本节证据包与检查提示>
)
要求：
- 使用全新上下文；只提供冻结证据包，不灌入主线程解释或预设结论。
- 只读文件，不写被验收对象、不修改报告。
- 不调用 codex，不做多模型评审，不再起子线程。
- 逐字比较原意见、授权裁决、整改 diff 与正式落点。
- 不评价原设计“选得好不好”，只判断有没有忠实落实。
子线程只能输出以下状态：
| 状态 | 含义 |
|---|---|
PASS |
对应清单项已正确关闭 |
FAIL-MISSING |
原采纳项或裁决有遗漏 |
FAIL-WRONG |
已回补，但改变了原意或落错层 |
FAIL-OUT-OF-SCOPE |
出现清单外的业务语义变化 |
FAIL-PROVENANCE |
“已批准”等结论缺少可审计 DEC-x 或实际授权角色 |
输出表每行必须包含：CR-x / 关联 AR-x 或 DEC-x / 状态 / 对象位置 / 事实证据 / 是否疑似改变业务语义。禁止给新方案或优化建议。
3. 主线程逐条裁决
子线程意见不是自动修改指令。主线程对每条 CR-x 三选一：
| 裁决 | 使用条件 | 动作 |
|---|---|---|
❌ 驳回 |
误报、越出固定清单、与明确证据不符 | 不改；写明正式规格或 DEC-x 证据 |
✅ 采纳 |
确定性遗漏、误写、落点错误，且唯一修法不产生新业务选择 | 主线程修正；记录改动后重跑同一清单 |
🚨 停机 |
证据缺失/矛盾，或修复必须新增业务结果、改变死亡线规则、对外契约、持久化语义或实施不可逆处置 | 合并成一张裁决表，请用户一次性拍板 |
主线程可以判断“是否违背既有语义”，但不能替用户选择“新语义是什么”。
特别规则：
- 发现语义变化不等于自动打扰用户。若
DEC-x或正式规格给出唯一答案，主线程直接恢复原义。 - 驳回必须留下“子线程意见 / 不成立原因 / 依据 / 是否改变业务结果”，不得凭直觉否决。
- 主线程不得折中创造第三种方案，不得把子线程建议升级为正式真值。
- 死亡线业务规则没有有效
DEC-x与实际授权角色时必须停机，不能写“已批准”。
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 144 lines · 134 tokens per session scan A 1db7ae688279
closed-remediation-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository BackToCimaCoppi/Praxis (6 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 134 tokens to every session and 1,909 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
github-commenting
How to post clean, rich, deduplicated GitHub PR review comments — suggestion blocks, multi-line anchors, markers, formatting rules. Load before posting or fixing any PR comment.
repo-conventions
NeuroLink's review standards — the critical rules to enforce, what NOT to comment on, the security bar, hot paths. Load before reviewing any change in this repository.
cpp-coding-standards
C++ coding standards based on the C++ Core Guidelines (isocpp.github.io). Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code to enforce modern, safe, and idiomatic practices.
resolve-pr-comments
Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments. Handles both change requests (fix or skip) and reviewer questions (explain using reasoning recalled from past Claude Code transcripts). Use when the user asks to "resolve PR comments", "fix review comments", "address PR…
reply-to-pr-threads
Draft, confirm, and post replies to GitHub PR review threads. Handles per-category reply formatting, re-fetches thread resolution state so auto-resolved threads are skipped, and posts via GraphQL. Use when the user asks to "reply to PR threads", "post PR thread replies", or "draft PR reply messages".
answer-reviewer-questions
For each reviewer question on a PR, recall implementation reasoning and compose a raw answer. Use when the user asks to "answer reviewer questions", "draft answers to PR questions", or "explain reviewer questions".