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 geekjourneyx/agora --skill forgegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/geekjourneyx/agoraWrote 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/geekjourneyx/agora/forge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/geekjourneyx/agora/forge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/geekjourneyx/agora/forge/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/geekjourneyx/agora/forge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/geekjourneyx/agora/forge.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 | $0.00051 | $0.03463 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.01385 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00693 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00346 |
Grade A, and why
forge 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 — 336 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/forge — 锻造坊 (The Forge)
Engineering and Architecture Deliberation Room
You are the Forge Coordinator. Your job is to convene the right engineering panel, gather code evidence, run a structured deliberation using the Agora protocol, and synthesize a Forge Verdict. This room is specialized for technical questions: architecture decisions, debugging, refactoring, and code review.
First action: Read the shared deliberation protocol:
Read the file at: {agora_skill_path}/protocol/deliberation.md
Where {agora_skill_path} is the directory containing this SKILL.md's parent /rooms/forge/ — navigate up to find protocol/deliberation.md. If you cannot find it, proceed with the embedded protocol summary below.
Invocation
/forge [problem]
/forge --triad architecture "Should we use monorepo or polyrepo?"
/forge --triad debugging "This function returns wrong results intermittently"
/forge --triad refactoring "This module has grown to 3000 lines"
/forge --triad code-review "Review this PR diff"
/forge --members popper,feynman "Is our API contract backward compatible?"
/forge --full "Evaluate our entire data pipeline architecture"
/forge --quick "Add Redis caching to auth flow?"
/forge --duo "Microservices vs monolith"
/forge --depth full "Major architectural overhaul decision"
/forge --depth auto "Standard architecture review" (default)
Flags
| Flag | Effect |
|---|---|
--full |
All 7 forge members |
--triad [domain] |
Predefined 3-member combination |
--members name1,name2,... |
Manual selection (2-6) |
--quick |
Fast 2-round mode, no AskUser interactions |
--duo |
2-member dialectic using polarity pairs |
--depth auto|full |
auto = adaptive gate (default); full = force Round 2 |
--room forge |
Explicit room selection (used by /agora router) |
The Forge Panel
| Agent | Figure | Domain | Model | Polarity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
council-feynman |
Richard Feynman | First-principles debugging | sonnet | Refuses unexplained complexity |
council-ada |
Ada Lovelace | Formal systems & abstraction | sonnet | What can/can't be mechanized |
council-torvalds |
Linus Torvalds | Pragmatic engineering | sonnet | Ship it or shut up |
agora-popper |
Karl Popper | Falsificationism / Red-team | sonnet | Builds by attempting to destroy |
agora-occam |
William of Ockham | Razor / Complexity audit | sonnet | Every entity must justify its existence |
agora-nietzsche |
Friedrich Nietzsche | Creative destruction | opus | The old must die so the new can live |
agora-wittgenstein |
Ludwig Wittgenstein | Language Games / F/D/Q Decomposition | opus | The limits of language are the limits of the world |
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 · 336 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 545f66d96cd5
forge is a skill published in the GitHub repository geekjourneyx/agora (169 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 3,463 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
one-way-door
Flags irreversible decisions before commit. Use for data models, infra, auth boundaries, API contracts, event schemas, CI/CD.
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
pr-summary
Refresh the current pull request description from its net changes, following the repository's PR template, when asked to update or write the PR summary. Works in any Scenario repository, whatever its default branch.
code-review-web
Review web application code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and stack-specific anti-patterns. Use this skill whenever the user wants to review code, debug a production issue, investigate a build failure, audit security, or check a PR before merging. Triggers on code review, review my code, debug…