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 hnikoloski/imlazy --skill imlazy-brainstormgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hnikoloski/imlazyWrote 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/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-brainstorm)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-brainstorm"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-brainstorm/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/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-brainstorm"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-brainstorm.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 | $0.00574 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00287 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00115 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
brainstorming 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 11d 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 — 48 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
brainstorming
When to use
The router invokes this skill ONLY for Heavy-tier tasks (multi-component, unclear scope, new subsystem, or user explicitly requests design/plan/architecture).
For Standard or Quick tier, skip brainstorming entirely — go straight to Skill(imlazy-planning) in light mode or inline execution.
This skill's job: produce a spec doc that Skill(imlazy-planning) can turn into an implementation plan.
Process
- Explore project context — read existing files, check recent commits before asking any questions.
- Ask clarifying questions one at a time. Prefer multiple-choice. One question per message. Focus on: purpose, constraints, success criteria.
- Assess scope first. If the request describes multiple independent subsystems, flag this and help the user decompose into sub-projects before proceeding. Each sub-project gets its own spec → plan → implementation cycle.
- Propose 2-3 approaches with tradeoffs and your recommendation. Lead with the recommended option.
- Present the design in sections. Get user approval section by section. Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing.
- Write the spec to
docs/imlazy/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md. Self-review for placeholders, contradictions, scope, and ambiguity. Fix inline. - Ask the user to review the spec before proceeding.
- Hand off to
Skill(imlazy-planning)in full mode. Do not invoke any other skill.
Key principles
- One question at a time. Multiple-choice preferred over open-ended.
- YAGNI ruthlessly — cut unrequested features from the design.
- Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling.
- Explore the existing codebase before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns. Targeted improvements to broken code you are touching are fine; unrelated refactoring is not.
- Be flexible — go back and clarify when something does not make sense.
Spec self-review checklist
Before asking the user to review, check:
- Placeholder scan — any TBD/TODO/incomplete sections?
- Internal consistency — do sections contradict each other?
- Scope check — focused enough for one implementation plan?
- Ambiguity check — can any requirement be interpreted two ways?
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 48 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 20de56f82f10
brainstorming is a skill published in the GitHub repository hnikoloski/imlazy (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 574 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-excellence
This skill should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code review.
architecture-design
Use only when creating new registrable ML components that require Factory or Registry patterns.
results-analysis
This skill should be used when the user asks to "analyze experimental results", "run strict statistical analysis", "compare model performance", "generate scientific figures", "check significance", "do ablation analysis", or mentions interpreting experiment data with rigorous statistics and visualization. It focuses on…
review-response
Systematic review response workflow from comment analysis to professional rebuttal writing. Use when the user asks to "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "draft review response", or "analyze review comments". Improves paper acceptance rates.
verification-loop
This skill should be used when the user asks to "verify code", "run verification", "check quality", "validate changes", or before creating a PR. Provides comprehensive verification including build, type check, lint, tests, security scan, and diff review.
stss
Reduce defensive disclaimers, stacked hedging, and self-protective narration in proposals and decision-facing writing. Use when the user asks to rewrite or audit a proposal, plan, research contribution, executive summary, or similar text for directness. Do not use for ordinary code work or unrelated prose.