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 weighted-scoring-matrixgit 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/weighted-scoring-matrix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/weighted-scoring-matrix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/weighted-scoring-matrix/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/weighted-scoring-matrix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/weighted-scoring-matrix.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 | $0.00015 | $0.00800 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00400 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00160 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
weighted-scoring-matrix 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 — 87 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Weighted Scoring Matrix
The Problem
Multi-factor decisions become arbitrary without explicit weights:
- "We chose Option A because it felt better"
- No audit trail for why factors mattered
- Inconsistent decision-making across time
The Solution
Explicit scoring matrix with normalized weights.
// Define factors and weights (must sum to 1.0)
const factors = {
performance: { weight: 0.30, description: 'Response time, throughput' },
maintainability: { weight: 0.25, description: 'Code clarity, test coverage' },
cost: { weight: 0.20, description: 'Infrastructure, licensing' },
security: { weight: 0.15, description: 'Vulnerability surface' },
userExperience: { weight: 0.10, description: 'Ease of use, learning curve' }
};
// Score each option (1-5 scale)
const options = {
optionA: { performance: 4, maintainability: 5, cost: 3, security: 4, userExperience: 4 },
optionB: { performance: 5, maintainability: 3, cost: 2, security: 5, userExperience: 3 },
optionC: { performance: 3, maintainability: 4, cost: 5, security: 3, userExperience: 5 }
};
// Calculate weighted scores
function calculateScore(scores) {
return Object.entries(factors).reduce((total, [factor, { weight }]) => {
return total + (scores[factor] * weight);
}, 0);
}
Object.entries(options).forEach(([name, scores]) => {
console.log(`${name}: ${calculateScore(scores).toFixed(2)}`);
});
// optionA: 4.05, optionB: 3.70, optionC: 4.00
Optional Boosts
For factors that can disqualify or strongly prefer:
const boosts = {
mustHave: (score) => score < 3 ? 0 : score, // Zero if below threshold
preferred: (score) => score >= 4 ? score * 1.1 : score // 10% boost if high
};
Output Format
| Option | Perf (0.30) | Maint (0.25) | Cost (0.20) | Sec (0.15) | UX (0.10) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 4 (1.20) | 5 (1.25) | 3 (0.60) | 4 (0.60) | 4 (0.40) | 4.05 |
| B | 5 (1.50) | 3 (0.75) | 2 (0.40) | 5 (0.75) | 3 (0.30) | 3.70 |
| C | 3 (0.90) | 4 (1.00) | 5 (1.00) | 3 (0.45) | 5 (0.50) | 3.85 |
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 · 87 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A ac43b3072db4
weighted-scoring-matrix is a skill published in the GitHub repository fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_Mall (4 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 800 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-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.
build-psychological-safety
Use when a team leader wants to assess and improve the degree to which team members feel safe to speak up, admit mistakes, ask questions, and disagree — because psychological safety is the strongest predictor of team learning and high performance.
run-performance-improvement-plan
Use when a direct report has a documented pattern of performance falling below role expectations — after informal feedback has not produced sustained change — to create a structured, time-bound plan with clear success criteria before making a continuation decision.
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-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-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.