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 danielkinneyspears/federal-proposal-skills --skill reviewing-color-teamsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/danielkinneyspears/federal-proposal-skillsWrote 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/danielkinneyspears/federal-proposal-skills/reviewing-color-teams)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/danielkinneyspears/federal-proposal-skills/reviewing-color-teams"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/danielkinneyspears/federal-proposal-skills/reviewing-color-teams/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/danielkinneyspears/federal-proposal-skills/reviewing-color-teams"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/danielkinneyspears/federal-proposal-skills/reviewing-color-teams.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 | $0.00125 | $0.01936 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00063 | $0.00968 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00387 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00194 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-color-teams 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 12d 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 — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing Color Teams
Run a proposal review the way a federal source-selection evaluator would. Color team reviews catch problems while they are still cheap to fix. Their value depends entirely on one thing: producing findings that are scored, prioritized, and specific enough to act on. A review that returns vague impressions wastes the most expensive afternoon in the proposal schedule. This skill runs the review against an explicit standard and produces a findings matrix the team can work in recovery.
When to use this skill
Use this skill to run any of the proposal color team reviews:
- Blue Team: early, on the solution and win strategy, before or during solutioning.
- Pink Team: on storyboards and an early draft (~30–50%).
- Green Team: on the cost/price volume and the pricing strategy.
- Red Team: near-final (~90%), scoring as the government evaluator would.
- Gold Team: final, executive go/no-go before submission.
- White Glove: final production / book check of the assembled package.
Determine which review fits the work and its maturity (the skill's intake does
this). This skill reviews; it does not fix. The fixes are recovery work, run by
running-review-recovery with the drafting skills.
Inputs
Required:
- The proposal content to review — storyboards (
11-proposal-outline.md) for a Pink Team; drafted sections (12-sections/and the volume artifacts) for Red and Gold. 10-compliance-matrix.md: the requirements the proposal is checked against.- The solicitation Sections L and M — the evaluation standard.
Preferred upstream artifacts:
05-win-strategy.md: to assess whether themes and discriminators landed.
Without Section M, a Red Team cannot score properly — Section M is the scoresheet. Obtain it before running a Red Team.
Read ../../shared/glossary.md, ../../shared/proposal-lifecycle.md, and
../../shared/pursuit-workspace.md if not already read this session.
Intake
Ask these as a numbered list.
- Which review. Which color team — Blue, Pink, Green, Red, Gold, or White Glove? If unsure, describe what is being reviewed and its maturity: solution/win strategy → Blue; storyboards and early draft → Pink; the cost volume → Green; a near-final full draft → Red; the final proposal → Gold; the assembled submission package → White Glove.
- Scope. The whole proposal or specific volumes/sections? Which artifacts are available to review?
- The standard. Are Section L, Section M, and the compliance matrix available? For a Red Team, what are the Section M factors, subfactors, their relative importance, and the evaluation approach (tradeoff or LPTA)?
- Win strategy. Is
05-win-strategy.mdavailable, so the review can check whether the themes and discriminators are present and persuasive? - Recovery time. How much time remains before the next milestone or submission? (This shapes how findings are prioritized.)
What ships with it
3 files 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.
- 12d ago First seen · 158 lines · 125 tokens per session scan A 0513e8569960
reviewing-color-teams is a skill published in the GitHub repository danielkinneyspears/federal-proposal-skills (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 125 tokens to every session and 1,936 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
analyzing-competitors
Produces a Black Hat competitive assessment for a US Federal opportunity as a wiki of competitor entities. Use when the user needs competitive analysis, a Black Hat review or session, competitor profiling, an incumbent assessment, or to understand the competitive field for a federal bid. Creates and enriches one…
qualifying-opportunities
Runs a structured bid/no-bid gate review for a US Federal opportunity and bootstraps the pursuit's knowledge wiki. Use when deciding whether to pursue or bid a federal solicitation, RFP, RFQ, RFI, sources-sought notice, or IDIQ task order — for a bid/no-bid decision, pursuit decision, gate review, opportunity…
igce-builder-ffp
Trigger for: FFP IGCE, firm-fixed-price estimate, FFP cost model, proposed FFP rate validation, wrap-rate analysis, Agency BPA rate comparison, price-reasonableness memo, or fair-and-reasonable analysis. Build auditable Firm-Fixed-Price federal estimates using BLS OEWS wages, layered fringe/overhead/G&A/profit, GSA…
market-research-workflow
Trigger for: federal acquisition market research; FAR Part 10 reports; refreshing an existing market research report; analyzing commerciality, competition, small-business availability, contract type, consolidation, prior awards, vendors, or market conditions; or preparing supported findings for a Pre-Award Agent. A…
acquisition-policy-workflow
Trigger for: explaining current FAR, DFARS, or agency-supplement text; determining documented acquisition-policy status for an agency and FAR part; comparing codified text, RFO model text, and agency deviations; tracing acquisition rulemaking; finding procurement comment periods; analyzing public comments; refreshing…
govcon-growth-workflow
Trigger for: finding federal opportunities; capture and bid screening; competitor or incumbent intelligence; recompete pipelines; teaming partner research; agency, customer, or market intelligence; federal labor-rate or pricing context; or refreshing prior GovCon research. Always begin with the local SAM.gov…