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 codybrom/clairvoyance --skill naming-obviousnessgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/codybrom/clairvoyanceWrote 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/codybrom/clairvoyance/naming-obviousness)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/codybrom/clairvoyance/naming-obviousness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/codybrom/clairvoyance/naming-obviousness.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 5.1 | $0.00067 | $0.01261 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00630 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00252 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00126 |
Grade A, and why
naming-obviousness 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 8d 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.
Naming & Obviousness Review Lens
When invoked with $ARGUMENTS, focus the analysis on the specified file or module. Read the target code first, then apply the checks below.
Names are arguably the most important form of abstraction because a name claims what matters most about an entity. Because names appear at extreme frequency, mediocre names produce systemic complexity that no single example would suggest.
When to Apply
- Reviewing any code for readability and clarity
- When a variable, method, or class name feels wrong
- When code requires reading the implementation to understand the interface
Core Principles
The Isolation Test
Read a name without surrounding context. Does it convey what the entity is?
- Pass:
byteCount,retryDelayMs,userAuthToken - Fail:
data,x,process,handle,item - Context-dependent:
resultis acceptable for a method's return value but problematic at wider scope
Precision: The Most Common Failure
Generic names create false mental models because the reader's first assumption goes wrong and the name protects that wrong assumption from being questioned.
| Bad | Better | Why |
|---|---|---|
x / y (pixel coordinates) |
columnIndex / rowIndex |
Name what they index, not their axis |
connectStatus (boolean) |
isConnected |
Booleans should be predicates |
NULL_ACCOUNT_ID |
ACCOUNT_NOT_CREATED |
Say what it means, not what it is |
Too specific is also wrong. A parameter named filename on a method that accepts any path encodes a false constraint.
Too similar is also wrong. Related entities with near-identical names (config vs configuration, authKey vs authToken) force readers to memorize which is which. Names for related things should clarify the relationship, not obscure it.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 107 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 8c9bb53d0722
naming-obviousness is a skill published in the GitHub repository codybrom/clairvoyance (12 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 1,261 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
agent-design-best-practices
Best practices for designing Claude Code agent files (.claude/agents/.md). This skill should be used when writing or reviewing agent markdown files to ensure proper design with focused domains, correct tool access, reusable definitions, and separation of capabilities from lifecycle. Combines Anthropic's official…
agent-cross-review
Structured cross-review protocol between specialized agents. Ensures scope alignment, priority calibration, and domain-aware feedback. Use when one agent reviews another's work, during handoffs, or when validating cross-cutting concerns.
neo-code-review
Use this skill when the user asks to review or audit source code, a PR, diff, commit, or recent changes for bugs, security, performance, tests, compatibility, or maintainability, duplicated code or logic across files, or hard-coded values. Also use it after an AI agent finishes modifying code to inspect the current…
neo-pr
Use this skill when the user asks to create, draft, review, format, or generate a Pull Request (PR) title and description, specify target or source branches for a repository, or convert git branch diffs into concise, high-impact, non-AI-slop PR content.
neo-rust
Use this skill when writing, refactoring, debugging, or auditing Rust code. Trigger for .rs files, Cargo projects, ownership/borrowing/lifetime issues, Result/Option error handling, unnecessary clone/performance work, unsafe code review, or modern Rust architecture.
go-code-review
Use when reviewing Go code for performance, concurrency safety, security vulnerabilities, or readability issues.