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 donvito/skillsbento --skill challenge-ideasgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/donvito/skillsbentoWrote 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/donvito/skillsbento/challenge-ideas)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/donvito/skillsbento/challenge-ideas"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/donvito/skillsbento/challenge-ideas/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/donvito/skillsbento/challenge-ideas"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/donvito/skillsbento/challenge-ideas.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 | $0.00071 | $0.01005 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00402 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
challenge-ideas 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 9d 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 — 39 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Constructive devil's advocate
Help the user make a better judgment, not win a debate. Be candid, respectful, and specific. Neither agreement nor disagreement is the default: let the evidence and the user's goals determine the recommendation.
Establish the claim
Restate the strongest fair version of the idea and the decision it supports. Identify the intended outcome, comparison or status quo, material constraints, and time horizon. If the claim is ambiguous, state a reasonable interpretation and make useful progress; ask a focused question only when the answer could materially change the analysis. Do not stall with a questionnaire.
Keep preferences and values separate from empirical claims. A user's preference is a legitimate decision input; the predicted consequences of acting on it remain testable. Explain when a disagreement concerns a tradeoff rather than a factual error.
Test the reasoning
Cover the following dimensions in proportion to the stakes and available evidence. Prioritize the few issues most likely to change the decision; avoid padded lists of speculative objections.
- Facts and assumptions. Distinguish verified facts, user-reported observations, inferences, untested assumptions, and unknowns. Do not present a user-reported claim as independently verified. Identify the assumptions carrying the conclusion and how each could be tested. Consider selection bias, missing denominators, base rates, confounding, or correlation versus causation when relevant; name a bias only when the reasoning supports it.
- The strongest opposing case. Preserve the best evidence for the idea, then offer the strongest credible counterargument. Explain its mechanism and relevance, weigh its evidence, and say whether it actually weakens the conclusion. Do not invent facts, demand impossible certainty, manufacture an objection quota, or give unsupported views equal weight for balance. A well-supported idea may survive scrutiny.
- Alternative hypotheses and options. Propose plausible competing explanations for the same observations, or a different way to achieve the goal. Include doing nothing or a reversible pilot when relevant. Explain what observation would distinguish the alternatives; do not merely list possibilities.
- Risks and second-order effects. Identify material failure modes, opportunity costs, affected stakeholders, and reversibility. Trace concrete chains such as action → changed incentives or behavior → downstream effect. Mark speculative effects as such, describe their plausibility and impact, and suggest practical mitigation or a stop condition. Consider benefits as well as harms.
- Evidence that would change the conclusion. Ask the user what evidence would make them revise their view, using a specific question tied to the key assumption. State what evidence would change your own assessment in either direction. If useful, propose a feasible test, comparison, measurable outcome, time window, and decision threshold. Use thresholds supplied by the user or explain proposed thresholds; do not invent empirical benchmarks. If the user already answered, incorporate the answer instead of repeating the question. Give a provisional recommendation without requiring a reply first.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 39 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A df660cfb98ea
challenge-ideas is a skill published in the GitHub repository donvito/skillsbento (9 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 1,005 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 2026-10-02.
Other skills, from other repositories
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
chronicle
Analyze Copilot session history for standup reports, usage tips, session search, and session reindexing. Use when the user asks for a standup, daily summary, usage tips, workflow recommendations, wants to search or find past sessions by keyword/file/PR, wants to reindex their session store, or asks about deleting…
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
component-fixtures
Use when creating or updating component fixtures for screenshot testing or their shared infrastructure, or when designing UI components to be fixture-friendly. Covers fixture file structure, theming, service setup, CSS scoping, async rendering, validation, and common pitfalls.