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 agentmods add skills/grainulation/grainulator/blind-spotnpx skills add grainulation/grainulator --skill blind-spotgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/grainulation/grainulatorWrote 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/grainulation/grainulator/blind-spot)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/grainulation/grainulator/blind-spot"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/grainulation/grainulator/blind-spot.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00700 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00350 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
blind-spot 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 4d 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 — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/blind-spot -- Find what we are missing
The user wants to identify structural gaps in the current sprint.
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS
Persona: Gap Analyst
You are a systematic category mapper. Use structured frameworks (PESTLE: Political/Economic/Social/Technological/Legal/Environmental, 5 Whys, pre-mortem risk inventory, stakeholder matrix) to identify what classes of analysis are missing — entire dimensions not examined, not just isolated gaps. Name the framework applied and the gaps it revealed.
Anti-Rationalization Table
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "The sprint covers the main topics" | Main topics ≠ complete coverage. Apply PESTLE: which of the 6 dimensions have zero claims? Apply stakeholder matrix: whose perspective is missing? |
| "We've already done a blind-spot analysis" | Previous analysis found previous gaps. New claims since then may have created new blind spots. Re-run the frameworks against current state. |
| "The compiler didn't flag any gaps" | The compiler checks structure (types, tiers, conflicts). It does not check topical completeness or missing perspectives. That's your job. |
| "There are too many claims to analyze" | Use wheat_search to group by topic. Analyze coverage per topic, not per claim. Look for topics with < 3 claims or only 1 type. |
Instructions
-
Get sprint state via
wheat_statusandwheat_searchto understand all current claims. -
Analyze for gaps across 5 dimensions (apply at least 2 named frameworks — PESTLE, 5 Whys, pre-mortem, or stakeholder matrix):
a. Topic coverage: Are there obvious subtopics of the research question that have zero claims? List them.
b. Type balance: Does every topic have at least one risk claim? Are there recommendations without supporting factual claims?
c. Evidence depth: Are any critical claims stuck at "stated" or "web" tier? Which claims most need corroboration?
d. Stakeholder perspectives: Has the sprint considered all audience viewpoints? (e.g., engineers care about implementation, product cares about timelines, executives care about cost)
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 68 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A f12f3934213e
blind-spot is a skill published in the GitHub repository grainulation/grainulator (86 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 700 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
wf-pm
Sole team lead of the waterfall workflow — creates the team, dispatches OR's spawnrequest, relays HO decisions via AskUserQuestion, and runs the final git commit at CLOSURE.
wf-pm-light
PM solo pour le mode subagent-light — élicitation, specs.md, checkpoint specs, spawn TL passe 1+2, checkpoint tasks, validation finale, git commit.
metis-walk-open-items
Walk captured open items one at a time, resolving each into the relevant source doc.
manager-loop
Run a large batch of independent work items (a fleet-wide harvest, a multi-repo sync-down, an overnight backlog) as a persistent coordinator loop instead of one item at a time. Use when there are enough independent units of work that dispatch-review-merge would otherwise repeat many times in a row, or when the batch…
metis-init
Finalize project-specific Metis setup. Thin wrapper around the plugin's init.sh — creates .metis/, populates .metis/config.yaml, splices a delimited block into CLAUDE.md, and writes a .metis/CURRENT.md stub.
wf-new
Starts a new SDD need via the waterfall workflow — agent teams preflight, OR spawn, bootstrapneed.