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 daddia/claude-for-strategy --skill define-perspectivesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/daddia/claude-for-strategyWrote 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/daddia/claude-for-strategy/define-perspectives)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/daddia/claude-for-strategy/define-perspectives"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/daddia/claude-for-strategy/define-perspectives/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/daddia/claude-for-strategy/define-perspectives"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/daddia/claude-for-strategy/define-perspectives.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 | $0.00053 | $0.02049 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00820 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00410 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00205 |
Grade A, and why
define-perspectives 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 — 186 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Define Perspectives
When to use
For strategy office or FP&A practitioners deciding the perspective set and causal-chain order before drafting objectives. The real decision isn't naming four boxes — it's which perspective sits at the top of the causal chain, because every other objective ultimately has to serve that end.
What this skill does not do
- Does not draft objectives — output feeds
/balanced-scorecard:build-strategy-maponly. - Does not select measures or targets — route to
/balanced-scorecard:select-measuresand/balanced-scorecard:set-targets-and-initiatives. - Does not decide hybrid top perspective for the user — runs pressure test and surfaces trade-offs; strategist chooses.
- Does not replace practice-setup — reads practice profile; run
/balanced-scorecard:practice-setupif profile is empty.
Preconditions
| Input | If missing |
|---|---|
| Practice profile and org profile | Read if present; if sector unknown, ask before applying checklist |
| Sector / mission constraint awareness | Ask — do not default to for-profit Financial-at-top |
| User confirmation on ambiguous hybrid | Flag [review]; do not fake a single top when pressure test is unresolved |
Provisional mode
When sector is unclear or user has not answered pressure test:
- Label CONFIDENCE: structured first pass.
- Present checklist options with
[review]on unresolved hybrid. - Do not proceed to
build-strategy-maphandoff without stated top perspective or explicit dual-track flag.
Trust spine
- Confidence bands (
structured-aggregation):- High: Sector confirmed, top perspective chosen via checklist or documented pressure-test answer, every perspective has stated causal role.
- Medium: Mostly complete; weak rename rationale or fifth-perspective proposal under review.
- Low: Scaffold only — sector unknown or hybrid unresolved; dual-track flagged explicitly.
- Tag vocabulary:
[review]on subjective structural choices;[verify]on user-stated sector facts. - Failure modes:
- Strategic advice vs. support: Surfaces checklist and pressure test; does not pick Financial vs Mission for hybrid orgs without user answer.
- Client confidentiality: Perspective choices may reveal org strategy — apply CONFIDENTIAL header when appropriate.
- Accountability gap: TOP-PERSPECTIVE DECISION block forces explicit rationale; unresolved hybrid → dual-track note, not silent default.
- Analytical Rigor: N/A — structural framing, not MECE analysis.
- Incentive Gaming: N/A — no scoring or tracking.
- Escalation triggers:
- Hybrid org with no pressure-test answer → ask test; flag dual-track if genuinely cannot choose.
- Fifth perspective proposed → run gate; default resist unless user articulates trade-off.
- Mission-driven org with Financial-at-top requested without rationale → flag
[review], cite checklist. - Cosmetic renames without causal role → reject rename or require causal-clarity rationale.
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 First seen · 186 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A a1ec62a6a1dc
define-perspectives is a skill published in the GitHub repository daddia/claude-for-strategy (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 2,049 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
review
Run the full pre-merge panel: parallel audit and lens reviewers over a diff, consolidated into one severity-ranked verdict.
to-tickets
Slice a spec or a ticket into tracer-bullet tickets with blocking edges, published through the repo's tracker: .specs/tickets/ .md by default.
tdd
Test-driven development, from unit to end-to-end tests. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration or end-to-end tests (Playwright, Cypress). Don't use to backfill tests on existing code (/refactor) or diagnose an unknown bug (/debug).
visual-review
Two visual modes — render a PR diff as an HTML page with each hunk annotated by principle, or check a UI change in a real browser (screenshots, console, network). Use for a visual/HTML diff report, "check the UI", or "screenshot before/after". Don't use for text-only feedback (/code-review), unit tests (/tdd), or full…
to-pr
Gate, push, and open a GitHub pull request on the repo's PR template, then watch CI.
debate
Settle a go/no-go on one risky change against an alternative through an advocate, a skeptic, and a neutral investigator.