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 human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-epistemology-justificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/human-avatar/skills-for-humanityWrote 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/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-epistemology-justification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-epistemology-justification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-epistemology-justification/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/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-epistemology-justification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-epistemology-justification.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00122 | $0.01901 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00061 | $0.00950 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00380 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00190 |
Grade A, and why
s4h-epistemology-justification 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 9d 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 — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Epistemology: Justification
A belief can feel well-supported without actually being justified. The feeling of certainty is not evidence of justification — it's evidence of confidence, which is a psychological state, not an epistemic one. Justification analysis makes the load-bearing structure of a belief explicit so it can be examined and tested.
Three main structures for how beliefs get justified:
- Foundationalism: beliefs are justified by tracing back to basic beliefs that are self-evident, incorrigible, or empirically certain. The chain has a floor.
- Coherentism: beliefs are justified by fitting into a mutually supporting web of other beliefs. No single foundation — the whole web holds itself up.
- Reliabilism: beliefs are justified if they were produced by a reliable cognitive process (careful observation, valid inference, calibrated expert judgment) — regardless of whether the believer can articulate why.
Most real belief systems are hybrid. The point of analysis is not to pick the right theory of justification — it's to find where the specific belief's justification structure is weakest.
Your Process
Step 1: Identify the Belief State the belief precisely. What exactly is being claimed to be known or justifiably believed? Strip away hedges and weasel words to get the core claim.
Framing check: Confirm the specific belief before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual claim being analyzed and the domain or context it comes from — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the specific belief and its context]. Is that right?"
- Header: "Framing"
- Options:
- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
- Reframe — different belief than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
Step 2: Trace the Justification Chain Ask: "What makes you think that?" Recursively trace the answer until you hit one of three stopping points:
- A basic belief that seems self-evident or foundational (foundationalism)
- A cluster of mutually supporting beliefs with no clear floor (coherentism)
- "This is the output of a process I trust" — e.g., experiment, calibrated expert judgment (reliabilism)
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 153 lines · 122 tokens per session scan A 23ae9036e240
s4h-epistemology-justification is a skill published in the GitHub repository human-avatar/skills-for-humanity (223 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 122 tokens to every session and 1,901 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
decision-making-under-pressure
Provides practical habits for making better decisions faster -- reframing problems before solving them, knowing when to stop deliberating, balancing intuition with analysis, resisting 'just this once' compromises, and breaking overthinking cycles. Use when facing a high-stakes choice with incomplete data, sensing that…
flow-state
Optimizes individual and team productivity using Csikszentmihalyi's flow state framework, covering the conditions for flow (clear goals, immediate feedback, challenge-skill balance), the four-stage flow cycle, and organizational flow design. Use when auditing personal or team focus time, diagnosing productivity loss…
stoic-right-action
Applies Stoic ethics of right action to entrepreneurial decision-making, covering the four cardinal virtues (courage, justice, temperance, wisdom), ethical leadership under pressure, and the discipline of choosing the harder right over the easier wrong. Use when facing ethical dilemmas in business, building a…
bakeoff
Turn one decision into a judged tournament of solutions, then pick the best. Given a problem, design choice, or a suggestion you want cross-verified, it generates diverse candidate solutions, auto-derives the evaluation dimensions for THAT problem (so you don't have to know what to score on), judges every candidate…
balanced-scorecard
Translate strategy into metrics across Financial, Customer, Internal Process, and Learning & Growth perspectives.
customer-journey-map
Visualize every touchpoint a customer has with a product or service — stages, actions, emotions, pain points, opportunities.