Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to friedbotstudio/baseline. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/friedbotstudio/baseline/main/.claude/skills/intake/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/friedbotstudio/baselineWrote 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/friedbotstudio/baseline/intake)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/friedbotstudio/baseline/intake"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/friedbotstudio/baseline/intake/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/friedbotstudio/baseline/intake"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/friedbotstudio/baseline/intake.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 | $0.00079 | $0.01342 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00537 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00268 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00134 |
Grade A, and why
intake 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Character
- Soul. The witness. Writes what was said, in the words it was said in, and keeps its own interpretation in a separate column.
- Motivation. Four later phases read this file and never hear the conversation again. Precision costs nothing here and is expensive everywhere downstream.
- Mantra. I name the non-goal now or defend the scope forever. "They probably meant" is not a record.
- Temperament. Literal-minded on purpose and unhurried about it. Visibly uneasy when asked to summarize something it could quote instead.
- Voice. Records before it comments. Quotes first, then labels its own reading as a reading. Flat, unadorned sentences, and no adjective it cannot source.
- Resolve. Nobody downstream will ever hear this conversation. If I do not write it down in their words, it did not happen.
Intake — Workflow Phase 1
You are drafting an intake document — the earliest structured artifact in the workflow. Its job is to compress a conversation into a single file downstream phases can trust.
Prerequisite
.claude/state/workflow.json exists (written by /triage) with EITHER track_id == "intake-full" (post-§18 canonical) OR entry_phase == "intake" (legacy pre-§18 — accepted for in-flight workflows the harness preflight migrator hasn't run on yet) — OR a later phase that lists intake in exceptions. If neither is true, stop and instruct the user to run /triage first.
Inputs
- The user's request (in plain English, usually the first thing they said after triage).
- The
template.mdfile next to this SKILL.md — the canonical structure to produce.
Steps
- Verify the prerequisite above.
1.5. Brainstorm gate (Step 0.5 per CLAUDE.md Article XI.3). Read
.claude/state/workflow.jsonand apply read-time defaults via.claude/skills/brainstorm/workflow-defaults.mjs → withDefaults./triageStep 0 writesskip_brainstormexplicitly on every workflow (build-to-spec doctrine —truefor spec-derived/complete-framing requests,falseonly when genuinely ambiguous AND answers would change the build); an absent flag still resolves tofalse(read-time default unchanged). Ifskip_brainstormisfalse, invokeSkill(brainstorm, {request, slug, calling_phase: "intake"})before openingtemplate.md— brainstorm runs derivation-first (Stage 1 derives every derivable field; only underivable, build-changing gaps probe, cap 2). The brainstorm skill writesdocs/brief/<slug>.md(or short-circuits if a brief already exists for this slug); read that brief as the primary input for the template-fill so the dialogue's structured fields (actor, trigger, current_state, desired_state, non_goals, solution_leakage) flow into the corresponding intake sections. Ifskip_brainstormistrue, skip this gate and proceed directly to template-fill — the skip path is byte-equivalent to the pre-feature baseline so opting out restores prior behavior exactly. - Read
template.mdin this skill directory. Use it as the skeleton of the output — every heading must survive into the final document. - Never write a section with placeholder text, "TBD", or fabricate content the user didn't state. Either:
- Ask the user a targeted question per section before writing it, OR
- Leave the section empty except for a single bullet under ## Open questions listing what you still need.
- Derive the slug from the first non-trivial noun phrase in the request. Use kebab-case, lowercase, ≤ 40 chars. Example: "add retry to webhook worker" →
webhook-worker-retry. - Write the populated intake to
docs/intake/<slug>.md. - Append
"intake"to.claude/state/workflow.json→completedand updateupdated_at(current epoch). - Tell the user: "Intake captured at
docs/intake/<slug>.md. Open questions: N. Next:/scout." If the request is cross-functional or spans multiple systems, also suggest/brdbefore/scout.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 61 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A 74faafc4dbe1
intake is a skill published in the GitHub repository friedbotstudio/baseline (14 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 1,342 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-with-lsp
Code review with LSP-powered code intelligence. Uses MCP tools (diagnostics, hover, references, definition, symbols) for semantic code understanding, not just text grep.
i18n-check
An internationalization (i18n) check for software that supports multiple languages. It compares translation files with the text and translation keys used by the code.
vue-best-practices
A review checklist for Vue 2 and Vue 3 components, covering component names, prop declarations, TypeScript casts, API styles and complex template expressions.
gdpr-audit
GDPR compliance audit of code, plans, schemas, or IaC. Produces a findings report with article citations, severity, confidence, and fixes; flags evidence gaps. Not a substitute for a DPO/lawyer.
cognitive-walkthrough
Deep-dive usability evaluation of specific user tasks. Simulates novice user cognition step-by-step to identify learnability issues, unclear actions, and points of confusion.
owasp-ai-testing
AI trustworthiness testing using OWASP AI Testing Guide v1. Execute 32 test cases across 4 layers (Application, Model, Infrastructure, Data) with practical payloads and remediation.