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 kryptobaseddev/cleo --skill ct-councilgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kryptobaseddev/cleoWrote 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/kryptobaseddev/cleo/ct-council)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kryptobaseddev/cleo/ct-council"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kryptobaseddev/cleo/ct-council/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/kryptobaseddev/cleo/ct-council"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kryptobaseddev/cleo/ct-council.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 | $0.00166 | $0.06076 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00066 | $0.02430 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.01215 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00608 |
Grade A, and why
ct-council 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 7d 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 — 405 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
The Council
Overview
The Council reviews a proposal, plan, architecture decision, or existing implementation from five locked perspectives, cross-checks each perspective through a shuffled gate-based peer review, runs a convergence detector to catch frame drift, then has a Chairman synthesize one final verdict for the owner.
Five advisors → Shuffled peer review (4 pass/fail gates per reviewee) → Convergence detector → Chairman synthesis → Single verdict to owner.
Every Council run's output is validated by scripts/validate.py — structural failures are caught automatically.
When to use
- Owner presents a plan, design, or existing implementation and wants it stress-tested from multiple angles.
- A decision is high-stakes enough that a single-perspective analysis feels thin.
- The user explicitly invokes the council ("convene the council", "council on X", "run the five", etc.).
Do NOT use for simple factual questions, routine implementation tasks, or anything the user wants a quick answer on. The Council is heavyweight by design.
The five advisors
Each advisor has their own progressive-disclosure file with full persona, mandate, hard rules, and self-contained output template. When running an advisor pass, load only that advisor's file — this enforces frame integrity and works equally well in single-Claude mode (re-read per pass) and subagent mode (each subagent briefed with only their persona).
| Advisor | Frame | Produces | Persona file |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contrarian | Devil's advocate / risk analyst | Failure modes with trigger conditions | references/contrarian.md |
| First Principles | Zero-based rebuilder | Atomic truths + reconstructed solution | references/first-principles.md |
| Expansionist | Frame-expander / opportunity-spotter | Asymmetric upside + latent assets | references/expansionist.md |
| Outsider | Cold-read stranger | Claim/reality gaps from the artifact alone | references/outsider.md |
| Executor | Action-only | Exactly one 60-minute action with expected outcome | references/executor.md |
What ships with it
30 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.
- .gitignore 312 B
- optimization/.gitignore 111 B
- optimization/HARDENING-PLAYBOOK.md 7.2 KB
- optimization/README.md 4.0 KB
- optimization/scenarios.yaml 5.9 KB
- optimization/scripts/campaign.py 21 KB runs code
- optimization/scripts/test_campaign.py 5.9 KB runs code
- references/chairman.md 7.2 KB
- references/contrarian.md 4.2 KB
- references/evidence-pack.md 8.9 KB
- references/examples.md 16 KB
- references/executor.md 5.8 KB
- references/expansionist.md 4.4 KB
- references/first-principles.md 4.5 KB
- references/outsider.md 5.0 KB
- references/peer-review.md 9.2 KB
- scripts/analyze_runs.py 11 KB runs code
- scripts/fixtures/executor_multi.md 4.9 KB
- scripts/fixtures/missing_advisor.md 2.7 KB
- scripts/fixtures/missing_convergence.md 4.1 KB
- scripts/fixtures/thin_evidence.md 4.1 KB
- scripts/fixtures/valid_with_llmtxt.md 9.6 KB
- scripts/fixtures/valid.md 9.6 KB
- scripts/llmtxt_ref.py 8.2 KB runs code
- scripts/run_council.py 28 KB runs code
- scripts/telemetry.py 22 KB runs code
- scripts/test_docs_store.py 10 KB runs code
- scripts/test_telemetry.py 24 KB runs code
- scripts/test_validate.py 18 KB runs code
- scripts/validate.py 16 KB runs code
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.
- 7d ago Changed · +22 lines d0f011aadbdc
- 22d ago Changed · +5 lines 6f6dc75e4817
- 1mo ago First seen · 378 lines · 166 tokens per session scan A 0bb3c13cf03c
ct-council is a skill published in the GitHub repository kryptobaseddev/cleo (159 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 166 tokens to every session and 6,076 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…