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 LucasSantana-Dev/sharekit --skill decidegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LucasSantana-Dev/sharekitWrote 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/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/decide)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/decide"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/decide/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/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/decide"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/decide.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 | $0.00081 | $0.00675 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00270 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00135 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
decide 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 1mo 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 — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Decide
Research the question → reach a recommendation → document it as an ADR.
Auto-invocation triggers
- User asks to "decide between X and Y", "research and decide", "pick a tool/approach and document it"
- After
adr-gapflags an undocumented decision that needs retroactive capture - When starting a significant architectural choice (ORM, framework, deploy target, caching strategy)
Workflow
Phase 1 — Research and Recommend (always)
Invoke research-and-decide on the decision question.
Output: options evaluated, recommendation with rationale, risks, rejected alternatives.
Proceed: if research produces a clear recommendation. Stop: if research returns "no clear winner" or "requires more constraints" → emit "Phase 1 inconclusive: [reason]. Provide additional constraints before proceeding to ADR." Wait for human input. Do NOT write an ADR for an undecided question.
Phase 2 — Document the Decision (at proportional fidelity, if Phase 1 succeeds)
Invoke adr-write using Phase 1's output. adr-write applies the record gate:
full ADR only when a gate trips (public-facing repo, sprint-level undo cost,
recurring-alternative rejection, post-incident); otherwise one status-prefixed
line in the repo's DECISIONS.md.
Pass to adr-write: decision title, context (the question + why it matters), chosen option + rationale, consequences, and alternatives considered.
Output: ADR file at docs/adr/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md, or one line in DECISIONS.md.
Done when: the record (ADR file or log line) is staged or committed.
Skip if: the same decision is already recorded (check DECISIONS.md and docs/adr/ before writing) → note path in reconciliation, mark as "already documented."
Reconciliation
DECIDE — <decision question>
Phase 1 Research: <recommendation: X | inconclusive (stopped)>
Phase 2 ADR: <docs/decisions/YYYY-MM-DD-slug.md | blocked | already exists>
Decision: <one-line summary>
ADR path: <path | "pending human input">
What ships with it
1 file 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.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 69 lines · 81 tokens per session scan A 36950ee39892
decide is a skill published in the GitHub repository LucasSantana-Dev/sharekit (1 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 81 tokens to every session and 675 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
feishu
Work with Feishu or Lark bots, docs, sheets, bitables, approval flows, and OpenAPI/MCP setup without hardcoding credentials.
interview
Ask one useful structured question at a time only when material product/implementation choices are genuinely missing; remember answers and produce a brief/spec. Discoverable facts should be investigated instead of asked.
atmos-validation
Validate Atmos projects, components, arbitrary JSON Schema inputs, EditorConfig, and GitHub Actions; use affected-file selection and native CI annotations.
atmos-config
Atmos root configuration: atmos.yaml discovery, precedence, deep merging, basepath, imports, minimal bootstrap, and routing to narrower Atmos skills.
deck-retro
Run a fully local agent-deck retrospective over the user's own transcripts, Recall index and logs. Use when a user wants to find recurring failures or take their own finding from investigation through synthetic reproduction, a user-filed issue, a test-first fix and contributor PR handoff. Also use for weekly usage…
loongsuite-pilot-insight
A reporting workflow for turning LoongSuite Pilot and AI coding-agent logs into structured reports about events, teams, data quality, development efficiency, and AI use. It defines the meaning of the log fields and the measurements used in dashboards.