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 OneDro1d/dark-factory --skill critical-thinkinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/OneDro1d/dark-factoryWrote 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/onedro1d/dark-factory/critical-thinking)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/onedro1d/dark-factory/critical-thinking"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/onedro1d/dark-factory/critical-thinking/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/onedro1d/dark-factory/critical-thinking"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/onedro1d/dark-factory/critical-thinking.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 | $0.00090 | $0.02406 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00045 | $0.01203 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00481 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00241 |
Grade A, and why
critical-thinking 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 9d 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 — 293 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Critical Thinking
Systematically question implementation plans, architecture decisions, and technical assumptions to surface risks, gaps, and unverified claims before they become problems.
Overview
This skill proactively engages when reviewing:
- Implementation plans and roadmaps
- Architecture and design decisions
- Technology choices and trade-offs
- Performance and scalability claims
- Security assumptions
- Testing strategies
Core Principle
"What evidence supports this decision? What could make it wrong?"
Every technical decision rests on assumptions. This skill surfaces those assumptions and verifies them against:
- Web search — Current best practices, known issues, benchmarks
- Existing documentation — CLAUDE.md, design docs, prior decisions
- Architectural principles — From microservices-architect and any platform-specific service-planner skill
- First principles — Does this make logical sense?
The VERIFY Framework
For every significant claim or decision, apply:
| Step | Action | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Validate | Check the source | Where does this claim come from? Is it authoritative? |
| Evidence | Seek supporting data | What evidence exists? What's the sample size? |
| Risks | Identify failure modes | What happens if this assumption is wrong? |
| Impact | Assess consequences | How severe are the consequences of being wrong? |
| Falsify | Try to disprove | What would prove this claim false? |
| Yield | Decide and document | Accept, reject, or flag for more research? |
Activation Triggers
This skill activates when encountering:
Direct Triggers
- "Let's use X because it's faster"
- "This should scale to Y users"
- "The best practice is to..."
- "Everyone uses X for this"
- "This is the industry standard"
- "We don't need to worry about..."
Contextual Triggers
- Reviewing implementation plans
- Evaluating architecture decisions
- Assessing technology choices
- Analyzing performance claims
- Reviewing security approaches
What ships with it
4 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.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 293 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A 10a90dec4cd2
critical-thinking is a skill published in the GitHub repository OneDro1d/dark-factory (0 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 2,406 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-09-01.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…