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 Kastalien-Research/thoughtbox --skill reducing-entropygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Kastalien-Research/thoughtboxWrote 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/kastalien-research/thoughtbox/reducing-entropy)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kastalien-research/thoughtbox/reducing-entropy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kastalien-research/thoughtbox/reducing-entropy/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/kastalien-research/thoughtbox/reducing-entropy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kastalien-research/thoughtbox/reducing-entropy.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 | $0.00038 | $0.00598 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00299 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
reducing-entropy 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 6d 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
94% identical to reducing-entropy — 2 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 — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reducing Entropy
More code begets more code. Entropy accumulates. This skill biases toward the smallest possible codebase.
Core question: "What does the codebase look like after?"
Before You Begin
Load at least one mindset from references/
- List the files in the reference directory
- Read frontmatter descriptions to pick which applies
- Load at least one
- State which you loaded and its core principle
Do not proceed until you've done this.
The Goal
The goal is less total code in the final codebase - not less code to write right now.
- Writing 50 lines that delete 200 lines = net win
- Keeping 14 functions to avoid writing 2 = net loss
- "No churn" is not a goal. Less code is the goal.
Measure the end state, not the effort.
Three Questions
1. What's the smallest codebase that solves this?
Not "what's the smallest change" - what's the smallest result.
- Could this be 2 functions instead of 14?
- Could this be 0 functions (delete the feature)?
- What would we delete if we did this?
2. Does the proposed change result in less total code?
Count lines before and after. If after > before, reject it.
- "Better organized" but more code = more entropy
- "More flexible" but more code = more entropy
- "Cleaner separation" but more code = more entropy
3. What can we delete?
Every change is an opportunity to delete. Ask:
- What does this make obsolete?
- What was only needed because of what we're replacing?
- What's the maximum we could remove?
Red Flags
- "Keep what exists" - Status quo bias. The question is total code, not churn.
- "This adds flexibility" - Flexibility for what? YAGNI.
- "Better separation of concerns" - More files/functions = more code. Separation isn't free.
- "Type safety" - Worth how many lines? Sometimes runtime checks in less code wins.
- "Easier to understand" - 14 things are not easier than 2 things.
When This Doesn't Apply
- The codebase is already minimal for what it does
- You're in a framework with strong conventions (don't fight it)
- Regulatory/compliance requirements mandate certain structures
What ships with it
5 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 82 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 227438f347b6
reducing-entropy is a skill published in the GitHub repository Kastalien-Research/thoughtbox (64 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 598 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to reducing-entropy, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
continual-learning
Nightly refinement of an existing per-repo review-style prompt using this reviewer's own finding outcomes. Read confirmed (resolved-by-commit / thumbs-up) and dismissed (thumbs-down) findings, promote the bug patterns the team actually fixes, demote the false-positive patterns, reconcile against the current prompt…
remarc
Manage Remarc session comments and contextual feedback. Use when the user mentions Remarc sessions, comments, handoff, triage, review, addressing, resolving, status updates, or summaries.
code-review
Review ServiceNow server-side scripts for ES5 violations, ACL/injection/XSS issues, N+1 queries, missing setLimit/error handling, hard-coded sysids, and business-rule recursion risks.
pr-self-review
Draft short, plainspoken notes in the author's voice that help reviewers understand non-obvious choices, boundaries, and preserved behavior in the author's own pull request or local diff. Use when the user asks to self-review, annotate, or add reviewer context to their PR or changes. Draft locally when no PR exists…
mcp-review
Review MCP server specifications and updates for compliance, security, and quality. Use when evaluating server.json files, PRs adding/updating servers, or assessing MCP server changes. NOT for creating new entries (use add-mcp-server instead).
challenge
Use before a root-cause, done/verified claim, irreversible action, or 2nd-time fix reaches the owner (APEX or plain conversation); also fires at every eLicit/Verify gate. Not for code correctness (use sniper).