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 | $0.00126 | $0.01920 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00050 | $0.00768 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00384 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00192 |
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 1mo 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 — 136 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 | 触发时由用户从本机可用 Claude Code、Cursor Agent、Codex 模型中选择至少一个；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. 单模型只读检查
使用当前运行环境的一名全新上下文检查者；若当前环境没有隔离上下文能力，可从对抗评审中已选且仍可用的桥接调用一个只读模型。模型与桥接记录实际值；不重新开放模型竞赛或设计评审。调用方式遵循 adversarial-review 的只读边界。
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。
- 不做多模型评审，不再派生检查者。
- 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
检查者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“检查者意见 / 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.
- 1mo ago Changed · -8 lines · -8 tokens per session 8beed8811914
- 2mo 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 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 126 tokens to every session and 1,920 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
ork-assess
Assess a code change, design, architecture, workflow, or competing options against explicit criteria and evidence. Use when a request asks to assess, rate, compare, identify trade-offs, evaluate readiness, or decide whether an approach is good enough. Do not use for a full pull-request review or to implement a chosen…
ork-review-pr
Review a pull request or branch for correctness, regressions, security, operational risk, and missing evidence. Use when a request asks to review a PR, review a diff, find real bugs, assess merge risk, or provide evidence-backed review findings. Do not use for implementation or style-only cleanup.
ork-verify
Verify that existing work is ready to merge, release, or hand off using an explicit evidence contract. Use when a request asks to verify, validate, prove, check readiness, run the relevant tests, or distinguish a claimed result from an observed one. Do not use to write missing tests or fix failures.
chief-of-staff
The CEO's right hand — maintains validated project context, prepares task contracts, logs cross-department decisions, and runs the weekly review. Use when the user says "what's in flight", "resume the project", "log this decision", "weekly review", "turn this idea into a brief", or when multi-department work needs…
appsec-review
Produces a bounded defensive application security review: threat model, security-sensitive diff, dependencies, and secrets hygiene with source-grounded findings. Use when the user says "security-review this release", "check this integration before shipping", "review the auth change", or "audit our agent's data access".
close-management
Runs the month-end close: generates a day-by-day runbook from D-2 to D+5 as CLOSE- .md with an owner matrix, dependency-ordered tasks (subledgers → accruals → reconciliations → flux → lock), numeric flux thresholds, a preparer/reviewer sign-off log, and close metrics such as days-to-close and reopened entries. Use…