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 KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude --skill thesis-proposalgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KhaledSaeed18/dotclaudeWrote 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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/thesis-proposal)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/thesis-proposal"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/thesis-proposal/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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/thesis-proposal"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/thesis-proposal.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 | $0.00091 | $0.00945 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00378 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00189 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
thesis-proposal 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 25d 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 — 43 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Produce a proposal a supervisor can approve: specific about what will be done, honest about what is uncertain, and short. A proposal is a contract for the coming months, not a literature review; every section exists to let a reader judge feasibility and value.
Inputs to gather first
Read before writing. Ask only for what is missing:
- The research question record (
research/QUESTION.mdor whereverresearch-questionwrote it). If none exists, run that skill's process first; do not invent a question. - The department's proposal template or page limit, if any. Follow its section names exactly. A proposal that ignores the template gets sent back on form before anyone reads the content.
- Reading notes produced by
paper-reader(research/notes/*.md) and the.bibfile. Cite only sources present there. A proposal with an invented reference is worse than one with a gap. - Constraints: submission date, defence date, supervisor meeting cadence, available compute or data, ethics requirements.
Structure (adapt names to the template)
- Title: descriptive, no colon-subtitle unless the template expects one, under 15 words.
- Problem statement (one to two paragraphs): the practical or scientific problem, who has it, why it matters now. Concrete, with one or two figures or citations that show the problem is real.
- Background and gap (one page): the three to six most relevant lines of prior work, what they established, and the specific thing they leave open. This is a targeted argument for the gap, not a survey; the full literature review is a chapter, not a proposal section.
- Research questions: the primary question and sub-questions, verbatim from the record.
- Method: for each sub-question, what will be done to answer it. Name the design (experiment, case study, design science, survey, systematic review), the data (source, size, access status), the procedure, and the analysis. State what would count as a negative result.
- Evaluation and validity: how results will be judged, what the threats to validity are (internal, external, construct, conclusion) and what is done about each.
- Expected contribution: one paragraph, the same sentence as the record expanded with what artifacts result (a dataset, a tool, a model, a set of findings).
- Timeline: a table of phases with start and end weeks, milestones, and the supervisor checkpoints. Back-load writing time: at least the final quarter is writing and revision. Include the buffer explicitly.
- Risks: table of risk, likelihood, impact, mitigation. Data access and ethics approval are almost always the top two.
- Chapter plan: chapter titles with one line each and a target page count. Total should match the department norm (often 60 to 100 pages for a master's).
- References: only entries in the
.bib.
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.
- 25d ago First seen · 43 lines · 91 tokens per session scan A 855bd73e80f6
thesis-proposal is a skill published in the GitHub repository KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 91 tokens to every session and 945 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-22.
Other skills, from other repositories
analytics-strategy
Design measurement frameworks including event taxonomy, KPI hierarchy, dashboard architecture, attribution models, and analytics implementation strategy. Use this skill whenever the user wants to plan analytics, design dashboards, build event taxonomies, define KPIs, set up tracking, or audit existing measurement.…
content-strategy
Develop a content strategy covering editorial positioning, content pillars, formats, calendar, governance, and topical authority planning. Use this skill whenever the user wants to plan a content program, define content pillars, build an editorial calendar, structure topic clusters, set up content governance, or align…
agb-begriff-vorformuliert-305
Für AGB Begriff Vorformuliert 305: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: agb-begriff-vorformuliert-305.
agb-rechtswahl-schweizer-recht-rom-i
Für AGB Rechtswahl Schweizer Recht Rom I: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: agb-rechtswahl-schweizer-recht-rom-i.
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.
haftungsdeckel-fuer-daten-und-modelldienste-pruefen
Bewertet Haftungshöchstbeträge bei Datenverlust, fehlerhaften Modellausgaben und Ausfällen digitaler Dienste anhand konkreter Schadensszenarien. Liefert eine Entscheidungsvorlage mit Risikobeträgen, Ausnahmen und Freigabebedarf.