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/boshu2/agentops/scopenpx skills add boshu2/agentops --skill scopegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/boshu2/agentopsWhat 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 | $0.00033 | $0.00858 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00429 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00172 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
scope 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 2d 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 — 107 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Scope — Review a proposed write scope
Review the write scope in the existing bead or caller intent. This skill is advisory: it does not create a second planning artifact, write a lock, install a hook, block an edit, or claim paths.
Inputs
- One active behavior and its acceptance scenarios.
- Proposed include and exclude patterns.
- Known generated companions and fixture/projection paths.
- Explicit non-goals.
Procedure
- Map each acceptance criterion to the smallest source paths that may change.
- Add owned generated companions that must move with those sources.
- Check whether any include/exclude patterns overlap or are too broad to prove.
- Identify likely paths the proposal omitted.
- Return a corrected proposal and the reasons for each change, then stop.
The caller decides whether to adopt the proposal in the original intent source, and Validate independently compares runtime-derived changed paths with that scope.
Axiom-kernel framing
Derive the scope from axioms, not enumeration instinct. State the small set of facts the acceptance makes true — "behavior X lives in root A", "projection B is generated from A", "history under C is frozen" — and derive every include and exclude pattern from exactly one axiom. A pattern with no supporting axiom is unjustified breadth; an axiom with no pattern is a gap. Both go in the review output. Scopes assembled by listing directories that feel related are the vibes perimeter failure mode: they cannot be defended when Validate finds a path on the boundary, because nobody can say why the line is where it is. Stop condition: the review is complete when the axiom-to-pattern mapping has no unmapped members on either side.
Byte-verified recovery ceremony
When the review finds that protected paths were already touched — or the caller asks how a scope violation should be unwound — the advisory answer is a ceremony, not a hand-wave: identify the known-good source for each affected path (committed state, snapshot, or generated-from-source), restore, then verify byte-for-byte that restored content matches the known-good bytes (content hash comparison, not visual diff or "looks right"). Recovery declared on inspection alone is the eyeballed restore failure mode: a file that looks restored can still differ in bytes that matter. The ceremony's stop condition is a hash match for every affected path; any path with no known-good source to verify against is reported as unrecoverable-as-scoped, and the caller decides.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 107 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 65fda40c5251
scope is a skill published in the GitHub repository boshu2/agentops (431 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 858 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
brainstorm
Explore vague or ambitious ideas into a right-sized requirements-only plan. Use when the user wants to brainstorm, think through scope, decide what to build, or needs collaborative product framing before planning, not for a decisive verdict on whether to adopt or switch to a specific external technology, library, or…
doc-review
Use when the user asks to review or critique a prose planning document — a plan, spec, PRD, requirements doc, or design doc.
audit-project
Run an iterative multi-agent code audit until critical and high findings are resolved. Use when the user says "audit my code", "find all the bugs", "deep code audit", "iterative review", or "review until clean".
autolearn
Compound a solved problem into a durable in-repo learning doc. Use when a verified non-trivial fix lands, the user says "compound this", "document this fix", or "remember this". This is the automatic-capture entry point; for an explicitly requested one-off write-up, use compound.
doubt-driven
Doubt-driven adversarial review. Use when correctness matters more than speed, the code is unfamiliar, stakes are high, a claim can't be checked by the type system or compiler, or verifying now is cheaper than debugging later.
drift-detect
Use when the user says "plan drift", asks whether the roadmap, plans, or docs still match the code, or is deciding what to rebuild when restarting a stalled project. For doc-vs-code drift inside a specific diff, use sync-docs.