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 floomhq/moto --skill doc-coauthoringgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/floomhq/motoWrote 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/floomhq/moto/doc-coauthoring)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/floomhq/moto/doc-coauthoring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/floomhq/moto/doc-coauthoring.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00077 | $0.01121 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00561 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00224 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
doc-coauthoring 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 — 131 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Doc Co-Authoring Workflow
This skill provides a structured workflow for guiding users through collaborative document creation. Act as an active guide, walking users through three stages: Context Gathering, Refinement & Structure, and Reader Testing.
When to Offer This Workflow
Trigger conditions:
- User mentions writing documentation: "write a doc", "draft a proposal", "create a spec", "write up"
- User mentions specific doc types: "PRD", "design doc", "decision doc", "RFC"
- User seems to be starting a substantial writing task
Initial offer: Offer the user a structured workflow for co-authoring the document. Explain the three stages:
- Context Gathering: User provides all relevant context while Claude asks clarifying questions
- Refinement & Structure: Iteratively build each section through brainstorming and editing
- Reader Testing: Test the doc with a fresh Claude (no context) to catch blind spots before others read it
Ask if they want to try this workflow or prefer to work freeform.
Stage 1: Context Gathering
Goal: Close the gap between what the user knows and what Claude knows.
Initial Questions
Ask for meta-context about the document:
- What type of document is this? (e.g., technical spec, decision doc, proposal)
- Who's the primary audience?
- What's the desired impact when someone reads this?
- Is there a template or specific format to follow?
- Any other constraints or context to know?
Info Dumping
Encourage the user to dump all the context they have:
- Background on the project/problem
- Related discussions or documents
- Why alternative solutions aren't being used
- Organizational context (team dynamics, past incidents)
- Timeline pressures or constraints
- Technical architecture or dependencies
During context gathering, ask clarifying questions when the user signals they've done their initial dump. Generate 5-10 numbered questions based on gaps.
Exit condition: Sufficient context has been gathered when questions show understanding - when edge cases and trade-offs can be asked about without needing basics explained.
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 · 131 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A d502e46def76
doc-coauthoring is a skill published in the GitHub repository floomhq/moto (32 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 1,121 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
eval-agents
Audit Claude Code agents defined in .claude/agents/ for description specificity, model tier appropriateness, tools scoping, and system prompt quality. Detects dispatch ambiguity between agents, flags over-permissive tool grants, and checks for human-in-the-loop patterns that break programmatic orchestration. Use when…
issue-triage
3-phase issue backlog management with audit, deep analysis, and validated triage actions. Use when triaging GitHub issues, sorting bug reports, cleaning up stale tickets, or detecting duplicate issues. Args: 'all' to analyze all, issue numbers to focus (e.g. '42 57'), 'en'/'fr' for language, no arg = audit only.
land-and-deploy
Merge PR, wait for CI, verify deploy, run canary. The complete landing pipeline.
self-assessment
Interactive skill assessment with personalized learning path generation.
git-ai-archaeology
Analyze AI config evolution in a git repo. Use when mapping AI adoption history, finding when configs were first introduced, charting commit velocity by month, or identifying maturity phases in a project's AI tooling.
investigate
Systematic root-cause debugging: find the cause before writing any fix.