agent-discussion

agent-discussion is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from leviuszen/meaning-assurance. It costs 29 tokens per session (2,899 once invoked), scanned A, original, Apache-2.0.

A read-only workflow for getting structured feedback from external agents on plans, architecture, code, strategy, or decisions. Codex remains responsible for evaluating the feedback and making the final choice.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it for planning reviews, architecture discussions, code feedback, strategy checks, and decision support, with collected feedback synthesized into a decision or a request for user input.
Why use it?
It adds another perspective before a decision or implementation without allowing the discussion process to edit repository files.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one. Also seen: mentions Claude Code; mentions Codex.

Good fit Use it for planning reviews, architecture discussions, code feedback, strategy checks, and decision support, with collected feedback synthesized into a decision or a request for user input.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/leviuszen/meaning-assurance/agent-discussion
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add leviuszen/meaning-assurance --skill agent-discussion
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/leviuszen/meaning-assurance

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for agent-discussion

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/leviuszen/meaning-assurance/agent-discussion/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/leviuszen/meaning-assurance/agent-discussion)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/leviuszen/meaning-assurance/agent-discussion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/leviuszen/meaning-assurance/agent-discussion/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for agent-discussion

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/leviuszen/meaning-assurance/agent-discussion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/leviuszen/meaning-assurance/agent-discussion.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 29 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,899 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00029 $0.02899
Opus 5 $0.00015 $0.01450
Sonnet 5 $0.00006 $0.00580
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00290

Measured 10d ago against content hash 0277e4427bdb, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-10, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

agent-discussion 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 10d 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.

skills/agent-discussion/SKILL.md · 214 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 214 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Agent Discussion

Use this skill when Codex needs structured external feedback for planning, architecture review, code discussion, or decision support before making a final call.

Current Path

For read-only external feedback, the current path is:

New-AgentDiscussion.ps1
  -> Invoke-ClaudeFeedback.ps1 -Round <1-or-2> -Collect
  -> Invoke-ReasonixFeedback.ps1 -Round <1-or-2> -Collect when Reasonix is a reviewer
  -> Collect-AgentDiscussion.ps1
  -> Codex writes codex-synthesis.md, decision.md, or user-decision-needed.md

If Claude returns a malformed fragment, a file list, or feedback rejected by the format gate, stay in the same discussion folder and use:

Invoke-ClaudeFeedback.ps1 -Round <1-or-2> -RawReadOnlyRecovery -Collect

Do not switch to an unrelated chat or a hand-written direct claude.exe command for this workflow.

Rules

  • Codex remains the moderator, evidence evaluator, and final decision maker.
  • Discussion mode is read-oriented and file-based.
  • Discussion mode does not edit repository files.
  • Discussion creation does not launch external agents automatically; use Invoke-ClaudeFeedback.ps1 only when the user wants Claude Code feedback now.
  • Discussion mode does not create worktrees, merge branches, apply patches, or accept code changes.
  • External agents write Markdown feedback files only.
  • Reasonix CLI is the automatic review path. Open-ReasonixDiscussion.ps1 remains manual compatibility only and never counts as completion by itself.
  • Codex writes synthesis, user escalation, and final decision files.
  • The default limit is two rounds.
  • Pick -Mode for the task type so the generated brief.md carries the right output structure. Use article-review for article analysis, strategy-review for strategy/planning, code-review for code review, decision for option selection, and general otherwise.
  • Use -Protocol adversarial-discussion when Codex needs debate, synthesis, and a second-round response. Use -Protocol feedback for one-way structured feedback.
  • Use -ExpectedSections when the user needs named custom sections. This is preferred over prose format instructions.
  • Use -ExpectedOutputFormat only for a complete Markdown template. Prose instructions like Markdown with sections: ... are normalized into a strict template and recorded as custom_normalized.
  • Use -ReferencePaths when the external agent needs to inspect article drafts, source files, notes, or bounded folders. Discussion mode copies read-only snapshots into references/files/ and writes references/manifest.md; external agents should read those snapshots rather than original absolute paths.
  • Treat ReferencePaths as frozen evidence copied at discussion creation time. Round 2 and -RawReadOnlyRecovery stay on the same frozen snapshots. If the original source files changed and the user wants a re-review of current files, create a fresh discussion with new -ReferencePaths.
  • Reference packaging fails on file-count or size truncation, and both CLI reviewers verify manifest inventory, byte counts, hashes, and evidence bundle identity before review.
  • The evidence bundle ID is stored in status.json and derived as SHA-256 over ordered snapshot hashes joined by newlines.
  • If a major disagreement remains unresolved after two rounds, Codex writes user-decision-needed.md, pauses, and asks the user to decide or redirect.
  • Agents are required reviewers. OptionalAgents are attempted and reported but do not block collection. Do not describe a one-reviewer result as a dual audit.
  • Use -AuditProfile scientific for consequential code-review and strategy-review work. Round 1 is blind and independent; Round 2 is limited to disputed, blocking, or weak-evidence findings.
  • Scientific dual review is complete only when every expected canonical roundN/<agent>.md file exists. Instruction, retry, recovery, and arbitrary Markdown files never count.
  • Reviewer-local finding IDs must be unique within each canonical file. Duplicate IDs are rejected rather than silently producing ambiguous calibration records.
  • Consensus is not proof. Codex adjudicates evidence and records verified outcomes; it does not majority-vote.

Read the full file on GitHub · 214 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 10d ago First seen · 214 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 0277e4427bdb

Subscribe to this mod's changes

agent-discussion is a skill published in the GitHub repository leviuszen/meaning-assurance (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 2,899 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 2026-08-31.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

hatch-pet

Create, repair, validate, preview, and package Codex-compatible animated pet spritesheets from character art, screenshots, generated images, or visual references. Use when a user wants to hatch a Codex pet, create a custom animated pet, or build a built-in pet asset with an 8x9 atlas, transparent unused cells…

nexu-io/open-design · 114 tokens

clinical-case-report

Structured medical case presentation for clinical rounds, conferences, and documentation. Generates SOAP-format or narrative case reports with physiologically accurate vitals, labs, and evidence-based plans. Use when the brief mentions "case report", "case presentation", "SOAP note", "clinical case", "ward rounds"…

nexu-io/open-design · 73 tokens

orbit-notion

Open Orbit briefing skill — selected by the Orbit pipeline when Notion is the user's only connected connector, or when the user explicitly scopes their daily digest to Notion. Pulls the past 24 hours of document edits, comments, mentions, and database row changes from the user's authenticated Notion connection and…

nexu-io/open-design · 117 tokens

github-dashboard

GitHub repository analytics dashboard — stars, forks, contributors, issues, pull requests, recent activity, and top contributors. Use when the brief asks for a GitHub repo dashboard, open-source growth report, repository health page, or GitHub analytics view.

nexu-io/open-design · 55 tokens

dcf-valuation

Discounted cash flow valuation and intrinsic value analysis for public companies. Use when the brief asks for DCF, fair value, intrinsic value, price target, undervalued or overvalued analysis, or "what is this company worth?".

nexu-io/open-design · 55 tokens

last30days

Recent community and social trend research over the last 30 days. Use when the brief asks what people are saying now, recent sentiment, community reactions, social proof, launch reaction, trend scan, or last-30-days context.

nexu-io/open-design · 53 tokens