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 jcarlosrodicio/opencode-agent-orchestration-kit --skill doubt-driven-developmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jcarlosrodicio/opencode-agent-orchestration-kitWrote 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/jcarlosrodicio/opencode-agent-orchestration-kit/doubt-driven-development)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jcarlosrodicio/opencode-agent-orchestration-kit/doubt-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jcarlosrodicio/opencode-agent-orchestration-kit/doubt-driven-development/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/jcarlosrodicio/opencode-agent-orchestration-kit/doubt-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jcarlosrodicio/opencode-agent-orchestration-kit/doubt-driven-development.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 | $0.00067 | $0.01808 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00723 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00362 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00181 |
Grade A, and why
doubt-driven-development 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 169 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Doubt-Driven Development
Overview
A confident answer is not a correct one. Long sessions accumulate context that quietly turns assumptions into "facts" without anyone noticing. Doubt-driven development is the discipline of materializing a fresh-context reviewer — biased to disprove, not approve — before any non-trivial output stands.
This is not /review. /review is a verdict on a finished artifact. This is an in-flight posture: non-trivial decisions get cross-examined while course-correction is still cheap.
When to Use
A decision is non-trivial when at least one of these is true:
- It introduces or modifies branching logic
- It crosses a module or service boundary
- It asserts a property the type system or compiler cannot verify (thread safety, idempotence, ordering, invariants)
- Its correctness depends on context the future reader cannot see
- Its blast radius is irreversible (production deploy, data migration, public API change)
Apply the skill when:
- About to make an architectural decision under uncertainty
- About to commit non-trivial code
- About to claim a non-obvious fact ("this is safe", "this scales", "this matches the spec")
- Working in code you don't fully understand
When NOT to use:
- Mechanical operations (renaming, formatting, file moves)
- Following a clear, unambiguous user instruction
- Reading or summarizing existing code
- One-line changes with obvious correctness
- Pure tooling operations (running tests, listing files)
- The user has explicitly asked for speed over verification
If you doubt every keystroke, you ship nothing. The skill applies only to non-trivial decisions as defined above.
The Process
Step 1: CLAIM — Surface what stands
Name the decision in two or three lines:
CLAIM: "The new caching layer is thread-safe under the
read-heavy workload described in the spec."
WHY THIS MATTERS: a race here corrupts user data and is
hard to detect in QA.
If you can't write the claim that compactly, you have a vibe, not a decision. Surface it before scrutinizing it.
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 · 169 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 45b89c102f41
doubt-driven-development is a skill published in the GitHub repository jcarlosrodicio/opencode-agent-orchestration-kit (141 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 1,808 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
ahk-review
Preview a code review against ticket/objective alignment, with deep semantic (name-vs-behavior) analysis. No tasks created, no harness tracking.
layout-grid
Grid and alignment rules for a macOS SwiftUI app, with three checks that catch misalignment (a lint for off-grid numbers, a layout probe that measures real frames in snapshot mode, and a grid overlay). Use when building or reviewing a custom page, card, row, form, or sheet, after every build that touched layout, or…
pr
Draft a PR body from OMC's paper trail — the smallest visual that proves the change, evidence consumed from the verify protocol (never re-collected), reversibility from the ADR test on the diff, glossary language throughout.
plannotator
Reference for using Plannotator (its plannotator tool when you have one, otherwise the CLI): plan review, code review, annotating files, URLs, folders, and running local apps, annotating the last assistant message, browsing archived plan decisions, exporting or sharing Guided Reviews, and the Plannotator Inbox…
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
agtx-review
Self-review completed work. Check for correctness, edge cases, and code quality. Write review to .agtx/review.md and stop.