Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to LeanOS-Technologies/strategy-os. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LeanOS-Technologies/strategy-os/main/.claude/skills/gap-enforcing-decisions/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LeanOS-Technologies/strategy-osWrote 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/leanos-technologies/strategy-os/gap-enforcing-decisions)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/leanos-technologies/strategy-os/gap-enforcing-decisions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/leanos-technologies/strategy-os/gap-enforcing-decisions.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 | $0.00050 | $0.02238 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.01119 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00448 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00224 |
Grade A, and why
gap-enforcing-decisions 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 — 248 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Decision Enforcement
Apply the mandatory decision rules to the gap ledger and destruction outcomes. Produce state changes, readiness gate values, execution queue entries, and governor escalations.
Every rule must be evaluated. No rule may be skipped. Every block must have explicit rationale.
Process
Step 1: Collect Inputs [S]
Gather from prior skill outputs and register state:
- Gap Ledger (scored and ranked gap records from gap-computing-ledger).
- Destruction Log (outcomes from gap-running-destruction).
- Current confidence states for all hypotheses.
- Current support states for all proposals.
- Decision deadlines and their statuses.
- Active blockers.
- Any governor responses from execution/queue/.
Gate: inputs_collected: bool -- gap ledger and destruction log both available. If either is missing, halt: "Cannot enforce decisions without gap computation and destruction pass."
- Pass: Step 2.
- Fail: halt. Report which input is missing.
Step 2: Apply Priority Rule [S]
Rule: Always work on the gap with the highest (gap score x blast radius).
- Read the ranked gap list from gap-computing-ledger.
- Confirm the #1 gap is the current work priority.
- If the current execution queue contains tasks not aligned with the top gap, flag them.
Gate: priority_confirmed: bool -- top gap identified, priority stated.
- Pass: Step 3.
- Fail: re-rank gaps.
Step 3: Apply Execution Rule [R]
Rule: A task is valid only if it reduces a top-3 open gap and produces T1 or T2 evidence.
For each proposed or active task:
| Check | Pass | Fail |
|---|---|---|
| Targets a top-3 gap? | Valid | Reject: "does not reduce a top-3 gap" |
| Produces T1 or T2 evidence? | Valid | Reject: "does not produce qualifying evidence" |
List valid tasks and rejected tasks with rejection reason.
Gate: execution_filtered: bool -- every task evaluated. Invalid tasks rejected with reason.
- Pass: Step 4.
- Fail: re-evaluate tasks against current top-3 gaps.
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 · 248 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A f0d764cafe4c
gap-enforcing-decisions is a skill published in the GitHub repository LeanOS-Technologies/strategy-os (37 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 2,238 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
llm-app-patterns
Production-ready patterns for building LLM applications. Covers RAG pipelines, agent architectures, prompt IDEs, and LLMOps monitoring. Use when designing AI applications, implementing RAG, building agents, or setting up LLM observability.
email-sequence
When the user wants to create or optimize an email sequence, drip campaign, automated email flow, or lifecycle email program. Also use when the user mentions "email sequence," "drip campaign," "nurture sequence," "onboarding emails," "welcome sequence," "re-engagement emails," "email automation," or "lifecycle…
qa-test-planner
Generate comprehensive test plans, manual test cases, regression test suites, and bug reports for QA engineers. Includes Figma MCP integration for design validation.
gepetto
Creates detailed, sectionized implementation plans through research, stakeholder interviews, and multi-LLM review. Use when planning features that need thorough pre-implementation analysis.
guidance
Control LLM output with regex and grammars, guarantee valid JSON/XML/code generation, enforce structured formats, and build multi-step workflows with Guidance - Microsoft Research's constrained generation framework.
content-research-writer
Assists in writing high-quality content by conducting research, adding citations, improving hooks, iterating on outlines, and providing real-time feedback on each section. Transforms your writing process from solo effort to collaborative partnership.