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 Gentleman-Programming/gentle-pi --skill cognitive-doc-designgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Gentleman-Programming/gentle-piWrote 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/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/cognitive-doc-design)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/cognitive-doc-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/cognitive-doc-design/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/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/cognitive-doc-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/cognitive-doc-design.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 | $0.00036 | $0.00527 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00211 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00105 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00053 |
Grade A, and why
gentle-ai-cognitive-doc-design 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.
This is a copy
97% identical to cognitive-doc-design — 2 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
When to Use
Load this skill when creating or editing documentation that people need to understand quickly, retain, or use during review.
Use it especially for:
- PR descriptions and review notes.
- Contributor or maintainer guides.
- Architecture, workflow, or onboarding docs.
- Any doc that currently feels long, dense, or hard to scan.
Critical Patterns
| Pattern | Rule |
|---|---|
| Lead with the answer | Put the decision, action, or outcome first. Context comes after. |
| Progressive disclosure | Start with the happy path, then add details, edge cases, and references. |
| Chunking | Group related information into small sections. Keep flat lists short. |
| Signposting | Use headings, labels, callouts, and summaries so readers know where they are. |
| Recognition over recall | Prefer tables, checklists, examples, and templates over prose that must be remembered. |
| Review empathy | Design docs so reviewers can verify intent without reconstructing the whole story. |
Documentation Shape
Use this default structure unless the repo already provides a stronger template:
# <Outcome-oriented title>
<One paragraph: what changed, who it helps, and why it matters.>
## Quick path
1. <First action>
2. <Second action>
3. <Verification or expected result>
## Details
| Topic | Decision |
|-------|----------|
| <area> | <concise explanation> |
## Checklist
- [ ] <Reader can confirm this>
- [ ] <Reader can confirm that>
## Next step
<Link or action that continues the workflow.>
PR and Review Docs
When documenting a PR, reduce reviewer burnout by making the review path explicit:
- State what to review first.
- State what is intentionally out of scope.
- Link the previous and next PR when work is chained.
- Keep each section focused on one decision or unit of work.
- Use checklists for acceptance criteria and verification.
Commands
# Check markdown files changed in the current branch
git diff --name-only -- '*.md'
# Inspect PR changed-line count for cognitive load
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json additions,deletions,changedFiles
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 · 82 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A a06b276b512e
gentle-ai-cognitive-doc-design is a skill published in the GitHub repository Gentleman-Programming/gentle-pi (804 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 527 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to cognitive-doc-design, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-team
Use when assigned a review or when an authored review boundary is reached.
pi-parity-review
Adversarially verify that a ported change is faithful to the original pi implementation (TS source + published npm build). Use after porting upstream pi changes, or standalone on any area of this repo ("is X faithful to pi?").
pi-go-review
Review ported Go code for idiomatic quality — that the port maximizes Go rather than transliterating TypeScript. Use after porting upstream pi changes, or standalone on any diff in this repo.
code-review
name: code-review description: Used when the user wants to review code, check quality, verify feature completeness, or needs to validate code implementation against Spec, DESIGN.md, and design mockups. Outputs a structured review report with evidence for each conclusion. version: 2.3.0 updated: 2026-07-16 requires: [].
aih-bugbounty
Scan open PRs and generated ECC/agent artifacts for high-coverage review risks before they are accepted. Use when a PR adds or changes agent bootloaders, Codex or Claude skills, MCP config, generated workflow commands, auto-learning instincts, repository review runbooks, or multi-agent review configuration; also use…
independent-review
Review a batch of changes as an independent reviewer who did not write them, before commit or push. Use after a set of edits, after an autonomous loop, or when the user asks for a pre-commit review.