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 griffinwork40/agent-framework --skill ground-claimgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/griffinwork40/agent-frameworkWrote 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/griffinwork40/agent-framework/ground-claim)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/griffinwork40/agent-framework/ground-claim"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/griffinwork40/agent-framework/ground-claim/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/griffinwork40/agent-framework/ground-claim"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/griffinwork40/agent-framework/ground-claim.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 | $0.00087 | $0.01540 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00616 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00308 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00154 |
Grade A, and why
ground-claim 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
100% identical to ground-claim — 0 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 — 149 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Trigger
Mode: capability (default) — Self-referential meta-capability questions about the current repository, framework, or system:
- "What does this repo enable?"
- "What are the orchestration patterns available?"
- "List the available skills."
- "What capabilities does the plugin provide?"
Mode: runtime-wiring — Claims that require tracing actual execution paths, not static structure:
- "Verify that middleware Y intercepts all requests."
- "Confirm plugin Z is loaded on startup."
- "Validate that feature X is active in production."
Skip both modes for: usage questions ("how do I use X?"), bug reports, feature requests.
Mode: capability (default)
Procedure
-
Extract capability nouns. From the user's question, identify 2–5 concrete capability categories (e.g., skills, hooks, agents, orchestration patterns, CLI commands, verification methods). Write them down.
-
Locate and read evidence. For each capability noun:
- Use Glob or Grep to locate source files (e.g.,
skills/*/SKILL.mdfor skills,hooks/for hooks,agents/for agents). - Read at least one concrete source file per capability. Record the file path and specific line numbers.
- Do not rely on training data, model recall, or session-listing attachments. Evidence must come from Read tool output.
- Use Glob or Grep to locate source files (e.g.,
-
Build the answer inline. Embed citations within claims, not in a separate appendix. Format:
path/to/file.md:line—<claim context>. -
Tag ungrounded claims. If a capability claim cannot be traced to a file read, prefix it with
[UNVERIFIED: what would be needed to verify this]. Never present an unverified claim without the tag. -
Declare sources read. Explicitly name which files you read in the response.
Hard rules
- Do not answer from model recall alone.
- Do not answer from session-listing attachments without reading the underlying SKILL.md or manifest files.
- Every capability claim must point to a source. Do not summarize without citation.
- Do not bury unverified claims. Use the
[UNVERIFIED]prefix and state the evidence gap. - At least one
path:linecitation per named capability.
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 · 149 lines · 87 tokens per session scan A e3ceabc8d6b9
ground-claim is a skill published in the GitHub repository griffinwork40/agent-framework (23 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 1,540 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to ground-claim, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…