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 Dianel555/DSkills --skill sequential-thinkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Dianel555/DSkillsWrote 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/dianel555/dskills/sequential-think)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dianel555/dskills/sequential-think"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dianel555/dskills/sequential-think/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/dianel555/dskills/sequential-think"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dianel555/dskills/sequential-think.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 175 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00110 | $0.01385 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00044 | $0.00554 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00277 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00138 |
Grade A, and why
sequential-think 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 — 195 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Sequential Think
Structured iterative thinking for complex problem-solving. Standalone CLI only (no MCP dependency).
Execution Methods
Run scripts/sequential_think_cli.py via Bash:
# Process a thought
python scripts/sequential_think_cli.py think \
--thought "First, let me analyze the problem structure..." \
--thought-number 1 \
--total-thoughts 5
# Continue thinking chain
python scripts/sequential_think_cli.py think \
--thought "Based on step 1, I hypothesize that..." \
--thought-number 2 \
--total-thoughts 5
# Revise a previous thought
python scripts/sequential_think_cli.py think \
--thought "Reconsidering step 1, I realize..." \
--thought-number 3 \
--total-thoughts 5 \
--is-revision \
--revises-thought 1
# Branch into alternative path
python scripts/sequential_think_cli.py think \
--thought "Alternative approach: what if we..." \
--thought-number 4 \
--total-thoughts 6 \
--branch-from 2 \
--branch-id "alt-approach"
# Final thought (complete chain)
python scripts/sequential_think_cli.py think \
--thought "Conclusion: the solution is..." \
--thought-number 5 \
--total-thoughts 5 \
--no-next
# View thought history
python scripts/sequential_think_cli.py history [--format json|text]
# Clear thought history
python scripts/sequential_think_cli.py clear
Core Principles
Iterative Thinking Process
- Each tool call = one "thought" in the chain
- Build upon, question, or revise previous thoughts
- Express uncertainty when it exists
Dynamic Thought Count
- Start with initial estimate of
totalThoughts - Adjust up/down as understanding evolves
- Add more thoughts even after reaching initial end
Hypothesis-Driven Approach
- Generate hypotheses as potential solutions emerge
- Verify hypotheses based on chain-of-thought steps
- Repeat until satisfied with solution
Completion Criteria
- Only set
nextThoughtNeeded: falsewhen truly finished - Must have satisfactory, verified answer
- Don't rush to conclusion
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 195 lines · 110 tokens per session scan A c23214e8150c
sequential-think is a skill published in the GitHub repository Dianel555/DSkills (65 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 110 tokens to every session and 1,385 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
geekx-gate
A review framework for deciding whether an engineering idea or technical commitment is necessary, too broad, or premature. It examines the real problem, complexity, evidence, non-goals, and ease of reversal.
casely
Virtual QA Lead that turns requirements into review-ready, TestRail-importable test cases in one conversation. Use it whenever the user has requirements, a spec, a user story, or acceptance criteria (PDF, DOCX, XLSX, TXT, MD, or pasted text) and wants test cases, a test plan, a checklist, test coverage, a regression…
geekx-app-forge
A product-discovery workflow for turning a vague idea for an app or tool into a small, testable plan before development begins. It examines the real problem, target users, scope, evidence, risks, and possible business value.
geekx-engineering
A set of engineering instructions for making substantial changes in an existing codebase. It emphasizes understanding the affected system, keeping a persistent plan, and recording decisions and evidence.
geekx-grilling
A questioning workflow for pressure-testing plans, decisions, requirements, and proposed solutions. It asks one important question at a time and uses the answers to clarify facts, choices, dependencies, scope, and exclusions.
battle-tested-engineer
Engineering judgment for code write/refactor/test and frontend UI. Trigger on code review, legacy cleanup, tests, UI with data, bloat/over-engineer complaints — even with no explicit mention, before any diff/rewrite/test suite. Output ultra-terse caveman style; code, commits, PR desc, security warnings stay normal…