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 survey-instrument-verificationgit 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/survey-instrument-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/survey-instrument-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/survey-instrument-verification/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/survey-instrument-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/survey-instrument-verification.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00460 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00230 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00092 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
survey-instrument-verification 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.
What it actually says
Survey Instrument Verification
The Problem
Manuscripts evolve terminology that may not match what was actually administered:
Manuscript says: "We measured perceived safety using a 5-point scale"
Raw data shows: 7-point scale with different anchors
Manuscript says: "Participants rated their agreement with 12 items"
Raw data shows: 14 items (2 were dropped but not documented)
The Solution
Before editing survey-related content, verify against raw data.
1. Check Scale Parameters
| Manuscript Claims | Verify In Data |
|---|---|
| Number of points | Actual min/max values |
| Anchor labels | Codebook or data dictionary |
| Number of items | Count of columns/variables |
| Response options | Unique values in data |
2. Verify Item Wording
Manuscript Appendix: "How safe do you feel walking at night?"
Actual survey item: "How safe do you feel walking alone at night?"
^^^^^
Missing word!
Compare exact wording:
- Survey instrument file (if available)
- Qualtrics/SurveyMonkey export
- IRB-approved protocol
3. Check for "Exactly As Administered" Claims
If an appendix claims "items shown exactly as administered":
# Line-by-line comparison
diff manuscript-appendix.txt original-survey.txt
This claim is a testable hypothesis — test it.
Verification Checklist
- Scale points match (5-point? 7-point? Likert?)
- Anchor labels match ("Strongly agree" vs "Completely agree")
- Item count matches (after exclusions?)
- Item wording is verbatim (if claimed)
- Response coding matches (1-5 vs 0-4)
When to Apply
- Editing methods sections describing surveys
- Reviewing appendices with survey items
- Any manuscript with quantitative survey data
Tags
academic surveys verification data-quality
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 · 77 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 9a939af81223
survey-instrument-verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_Mall (4 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 460 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
apply-moonshot-technology-investing
Use when evaluating a technically ambitious, high-uncertainty breakthrough technology investment — accepting a much higher individual-investment failure rate than standard venture investing in exchange for the possibility of a genuinely transformative, category-defining outcome most investors wouldn't accept the…
ai-agents-research-methodology
How a hunch becomes an accepted result in this repo. Covers the evidence bar, hypothesis-predicts-numbers discipline, and the idea lifecycle from contradiction log through probe, eval baseline, ADR debate, calibrated gate, and post-ship monitoring. Use when you say how do I prove this idea, run the idea lifecycle…
apply-change-leadership
Use when a manager's team is experiencing a significant organizational change — restructuring, strategy shift, leadership change, layoffs, or major process transition — and needs leadership that maintains team stability, preserves trust, and converts uncertainty into direction.
apply-cross-functional-leadership
Use when a manager needs to lead a project or initiative that depends on team members or stakeholders they do not formally manage — to build voluntary cooperation, alignment, and momentum across organizational boundaries through influence rather than authority.
apply-grow-coaching
Use when a manager wants to help a direct report solve a problem, develop a skill, or reach a goal through structured questioning rather than advice-giving — because telling people answers builds dependency while coaching builds self-sufficiency.
apply-high-performer-retention
Use when a manager wants to proactively retain top-performing direct reports — because high performers have the most options to leave and require active, differentiated management attention to stay engaged and challenged.