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 fall-out-bug/sdp --skill thinkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fall-out-bug/sdpWrote 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/fall-out-bug/sdp/think)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fall-out-bug/sdp/think"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fall-out-bug/sdp/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/fall-out-bug/sdp/think"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fall-out-bug/sdp/think.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 | $0.00272 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00109 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00054 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00027 |
Grade A, and why
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.
What it actually says
@think (INTERNAL)
Used by @idea, @design, @feature. Three stages: breakdown → parallel expert analysis → summary.
Stage 1: Task Breakdown
Identify aspects to think through. Choose main expert. Output: Understanding + Aspects table (5-10 rows).
Stage 2: Parallel Expert Analysis
Launch expert agents (max 4 concurrent) — one per aspect:
Task(subagent_type="expert"):
"Aspect: [name]. Task context: [brief]. Study project and propose options."
Each expert: study project → apply expert principles → propose 2-4 options → make decision.
Stage 3: Summary
When experts return, create unified document. Save to docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-[topic]-design.md. Ask: "Which aspects to discuss? Or ready to implement?"
Single-Agent Mode (<3 aspects)
Skip parallel agents: Study → Analyze (named experts) → Propose options → Recommend.
Principles
- Study first — read codebase before analyzing
- Named expertise — reference real expert principles
- Specificity — solutions for THIS project
- Honesty — every option has cons
- Clear recommendation — don't leave user hanging
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 · 40 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 99dc670461cd
think is a skill published in the GitHub repository fall-out-bug/sdp (19 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 272 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
norma-workflow
Run every coding task through Norma's deterministic checks and record the outcome to the audit trail. Use whenever you create or modify code in a workspace connected to the Norma MCP server, when asked to review code against organization standards, or when asked to work through the repository's open issues.
Tech Debt Auditor
Identifies and prioritizes technical debt in a codebase with an effort/impact matrix.
Unit Test Improver
Reviews existing unit tests for gaps, weak assertions, and missing edge cases, then rewrites them to be more robust.
Refactor Planner
Creates a safe, step-by-step plan to refactor messy code without breaking existing behavior.
code-discipline
Coding methodology for production-grade software development. Enforces structured thinking before coding, verifying reality, simplicity, surgical changes, contract awareness, and verifiable success criteria. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code that needs to remain reliable over time, including production…
umbra-trust-review
Verify AI-generated code before shipping. Run Umbra's Trust Score scan before committing or finishing any coding task, treat findings as blocking issues, and re-scan until clean. Use when finishing a task, before a commit, or when reviewing code written by an agent.