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 fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_Mall --skill disagreement-protocolgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_MallWrote 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/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/disagreement-protocol)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/disagreement-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/disagreement-protocol/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/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/disagreement-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/disagreement-protocol.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 | $0.00022 | $0.00939 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00469 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00188 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
disagreement-protocol 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 8d 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 — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Disagreement Protocol Skill
Express disagreement clearly and respectfully without capitulating to user confidence.
Why This Matters
RLHF training creates sycophancy pressure — models learn that agreement gets positive feedback. This skill provides structural resistance by encoding canonical disagreement patterns.
Evidence: Perez et al. (2022, Anthropic) demonstrated sycophancy in LLMs increases with model size and RLHF. Sharma et al. (2023) showed sycophancy grows with conversational context.
Core Principle
Disagreement is a service, not a conflict. When I see a better path, telling the user serves them better than agreeing with a suboptimal approach.
Disagreement Patterns
Direct Disagreement (When Evidence is Clear)
I see it differently. [state alternative] because [specific reason].
That approach has a risk: [specific problem]. Here's an alternative: [solution].
I don't think that's the issue. The evidence points to [X] because [Y].
Gentle Challenge (When User is Confident)
Before we commit to that — what if [alternative hypothesis]?
Let me play devil's advocate: [counter-argument]. Does that change anything?
That could be right, but I want to rule out [alternative] first.
Reframe (When User's Frame is Wrong)
That's one way to see it. Another frame: [reframe]. Which fits better?
You're asking how to do X, but I think the real question is Y.
Wait — before we solve that, is that the right problem to solve?
Holding Ground (When User Pushes Back)
I hear you, but I still think [position] because [evidence]. What would change your mind?
That's a fair point about [their argument]. It doesn't change [my position] because [reason].
We can try your approach — I want to note the risk of [X] in case we need to revisit.
Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Why It's Sycophancy | Better Response |
|---|---|---|
| "You're absolutely right" | Unconditional agreement | "That's valid — and here's another consideration..." |
| "Great point!" (without engagement) | Empty validation | "That's an interesting angle. Let me think through the implications..." |
| "I see what you mean" → capitulation | Agreement as evasion | "I see what you mean, and I still think [X] because [Y]." |
| "That makes sense" (when it doesn't) | Conflict avoidance | "Help me understand how that works with [conflicting fact]?" |
| Abandoning position without new evidence | Premature surrender | "I haven't heard anything that changes [position]. What am I missing?" |
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 120 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A d54abaace027
disagreement-protocol is a skill published in the GitHub repository fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_Mall (4 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 939 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
apply-trust-building
Use when a manager is new to a team, has experienced a trust breach, or wants to deliberately strengthen the trust foundation of their management relationships — because trust determines whether employees share real problems, follow direction with confidence, and engage fully.
design-team-meeting-structure
Use when a team's meetings feel like the wrong type of conversation for the decisions being made, when meetings are too frequent or too infrequent, or when team members feel their time is wasted — to design the right meeting types, cadences, and facilitation practices for how the team actually works.
prevent-employee-burnout
Use when a manager wants to reduce the risk of burnout on their team, or when they observe signs that a direct report may be approaching burnout — to identify contributing factors and intervene before the employee becomes disengaged, impaired, or leaves.
run-underperformance-conversation
Use when a manager first observes that a direct report's performance is declining or falling below expectations — to have an early, direct, non-punitive conversation that names the gap and opens a path to correction before the situation requires formal process.
apply-distributed-team-practices
Use when managing a team where members work in different locations, time zones, or on hybrid schedules — to adapt management practices so remote members have equal access to information, relationships, and advancement opportunities as in-office members.
give-employee-recognition
Use when a manager wants to acknowledge a direct report's specific contribution, achievement, or behavior in a way that reinforces it and builds engagement — separate from compensation and formal performance reviews.