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 agentmods add skills/kastalien-research/thoughtbox/workflow-revisionnpx skills add Kastalien-Research/thoughtbox --skill workflow-revisiongit 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/workflow-revision)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kastalien-research/thoughtbox/workflow-revision"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kastalien-research/thoughtbox/workflow-revision.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00026 | $0.01211 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00606 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
workflow-revision 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 145 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Execute revision based on review findings: $ARGUMENTS
Purpose
You are executing Stage 6 (Revision) of the development workflow. Review found issues with the implementation. Your job is to dispatch sub-agents to fix them, then re-run review until it passes — or escalate after 3 iterations.
Pre-Conditions
Before starting, verify:
.workflow/state.jsonexists andcurrentStageis"revision"- Review findings exist (either passed as argument or in
stages.review.artifacts.findings) - The working tree has uncommitted changes from implementation (since commits happen post-review)
Process
Step 1: Classify Review Findings
Read the review findings and classify each into:
| Category | Action | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Claim failure | Re-dispatch sub-agent for the specific claim | "Function X does not handle case Y" |
| Test gap | Add missing test coverage | "No test for edge case Z" |
| Spec divergence | Fix code OR update spec (with justification) | "Implementation differs from spec section 3.2" |
| ADR conflict | Flag for user decision | "This contradicts accepted ADR-005" |
| Style/quality | Fix inline (no sub-agent needed) | "Missing error handling on line 42" |
Step 2: Dispatch Fixes
For each finding that requires a sub-agent:
- Dispatch a sub-agent with:
- The specific finding to address
- The relevant spec section
- The file(s) to modify
- Instructions to return the structured summary format (from the conductor skill)
- Persist the returned summary to disk immediately
For findings that can be fixed inline (style/quality):
- Make the fix directly
- Note it in the revision log
For ADR conflicts:
- Present to the user with the four ADR reconciliation dispositions:
- STILL VALID — false positive, ADR reasoning holds
- NEEDS AMENDMENT — core decision correct, context needs updating
- SUPERSEDED — another ADR has replaced this one
- INVALIDATED — reasoning no longer holds, no replacement
- Wait for user decision before proceeding
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 · 145 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 88a9b89334c3
workflow-revision is a skill published in the GitHub repository Kastalien-Research/thoughtbox (64 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 1,211 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
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…
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).
code-quality
Use when validating code quality after modifications -- SOLID compliance, DRY duplication, linter errors, architecture violations. Do NOT use for functional verification (run verification FIRST, then code-quality).