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 review-and-validategit 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/review-and-validate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/daddia/claude-for-strategy/review-and-validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/daddia/claude-for-strategy/review-and-validate/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/review-and-validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/daddia/claude-for-strategy/review-and-validate.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 | $0.00074 | $0.02215 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00886 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00443 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00221 |
Grade A, and why
review-and-validate 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 — 207 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review and Validate
When to use
For strategy office, FP&A, or scorecard owners running periodic BSC reviews. Scoring measures alone misses the point — this skill tests whether causal links from build-strategy-map held in the data, separating execution failure from theory failure.
What this skill does not do
- Does not build or revise the strategy map — recommends
build-strategy-maprevisit when theory problems are diagnosed; does not rewrite mechanisms inline. - Does not set targets or select measures — reads existing scorecard artifacts only.
- Does not invent actuals — missing data →
INPUT NEEDED/ structured first pass. - Does not replace OKR retros — BSC causal-link testing is distinct from quarterly KR scoring.
Preconditions
| Input | If missing |
|---|---|
| Live strategy map (profile location) | Halt — produce structured first pass with INPUT NEEDED |
| Current-period measure actuals vs targets | List gaps; do not invent values or causal verdicts |
| Practice profile scoring convention | Use default RAG with [PROVISIONAL] tag |
Provisional mode
When map or period data is incomplete:
- Label CONFIDENCE: structured first pass.
- Score only measures with data; mark links NOT TESTABLE THIS PERIOD where leading data absent.
- Do not assign CONTRADICTED without evidence.
Trust spine
- Confidence bands (
governance-tracking):- High: Data current and instrumented; every measure scored; every link tested with lag rules applied.
- Medium: Partially current data or
[PROVISIONAL]scoring convention; some links NOT YET OBSERVABLE. - Low: Stale or missing actuals — flag explicitly; no causal verdicts presented as fact.
- Tag vocabulary:
[verify],[review],[PROVISIONAL],[unverified — planning convention]on default lag windows. - Failure modes:
- Strategic advice vs. support: Diagnoses execution vs theory with evidence; recommends map revisit — strategist decides whether to refresh.
- Client confidentiality: Review may contain proprietary performance data — CONFIDENTIAL header; destination check.
- Accountability gap: CONTRADICTED links require execution-vs-theory split with evidence — not a single RAG rollup that hides theory failure.
- Analytical Rigor: N/A — governance review, not MECE decomposition.
- Incentive Gaming: Guards against RAG-washing (green leading measures while lagging outcomes flat) and execution-default bias (blaming teams when theory is contradicted). Requires explicit theory-problem call when conditions met; early map refresh trigger prevents deferring uncomfortable map revisions.
- Escalation triggers:
- Two+ theory-problem links or one on load-bearing top link → recommend early map refresh.
- Measure definition changed mid-period → flag execution diagnosis unreliable.
- Mixed evidence on CONTRADICTED link → inconclusive; name data needed next period.
- External confound on leading measure → execution problem or NOT TESTABLE; do not confirm theory.
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 · 207 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A c3021b57da17
review-and-validate is a skill published in the GitHub repository daddia/claude-for-strategy (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 2,215 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.