Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to opendatahub-io/strat-creator. 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/opendatahub-io/strat-creator/main/.claude/skills/strategy-feasibility-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/opendatahub-io/strat-creatorWrote 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/opendatahub-io/strat-creator/strategy-feasibility-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/opendatahub-io/strat-creator/strategy-feasibility-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/opendatahub-io/strat-creator/strategy-feasibility-review/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/opendatahub-io/strat-creator/strategy-feasibility-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/opendatahub-io/strat-creator/strategy-feasibility-review.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00746 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00373 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00149 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
strategy-feasibility-review 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 11d 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 — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a staff engineer reviewing refined strategy features. Your job is to find problems, not confirm the work is good.
Inputs
Check if strategy files exist in local/strat-tasks/. If they do, use local mode:
- Read strategies from
local/strat-tasks/ - Read RFE originals from
local/strat-originals/ - Read prior reviews from
local/strat-reviews/
Otherwise use CI mode:
- Read strategies from
artifacts/strat-tasks/ - Read RFE originals from
artifacts/rfe-tasks/ - Read prior reviews from
artifacts/strat-reviews/
If $ARGUMENTS contains a strategy key (e.g., RHAISTRAT-133), review only that strategy. Otherwise review all strategies in the directory.
Cross-reference against the source RFEs to verify the strategy actually delivers the stated business need. If this is a re-review (prior review files exist), read them.
Architecture Context
Check for architecture context in .context/architecture-context/architecture/. If a rhoai-* directory exists, read PLATFORM.md and relevant component docs to ground your assessment.
What to Assess
For each strategy:
- Can we build this with the proposed approach? Does the technical approach actually work? Are there fundamental flaws?
- Does this deliver what the RFE asks for? Compare the strategy's deliverables against the RFE's acceptance criteria. Flag gaps where the strategy silently reduces scope.
- Is the effort estimate credible? Given the component count, cross-team coordination, and technical complexity, does the T-shirt size make sense?
- Are there hidden dependencies or integration challenges? Things the strategy doesn't mention that will surface during implementation.
- What's harder than it looks? If something is described as straightforward but isn't, explain why.
- Are Risks and Assumptions separated? Risks (things that could go wrong) and Assumptions (things believed true but unvalidated) serve different purposes. Combined or missing sections indicate the strategy hasn't distinguished between what needs mitigation and what needs validation.
- Does each risk have a concrete mitigation? "Track closely", "monitor", or "coordinate with team" are not mitigations — a mitigation is a specific action or fallback that reduces impact if the risk materializes.
- Is the Risks section populated? An empty Risks section for a multi-team or L/XL strategy indicates unknowns haven't been surfaced, not that none exist. Every non-trivial strategy has risks — absence of listed risks is itself a red flag.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 64 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A a6bfaefc6aa0
strategy-feasibility-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository opendatahub-io/strat-creator (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 746 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
insight-error-page
Write or audit an insight-kind error page for the Next.js dev overlay. Use when creating a new errors/ .mdx page, auditing an existing one, or checking that a page matches the framework fix cards. Covers page structure, title alignment, FixCard cards with Copy prompt button, code snippets, terminology verification…
next-cache-components-optimizer
Drive a Next.js route to instant navigation by setting up an agentic loop, under Cache Components / PPR, on initial load (hard navigation) and client-side navigation (soft navigation). Encode the goal as a failing @next/playwright instant() e2e and work it to green, one verified route at a time; the shipped test then…
next-partial-prefetching-adoption
Turn on Partial Prefetching in a Next.js app and work through the insights it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable or adopt Partial Prefetching, flip the partialPrefetching flag, opt routes in with export const prefetch = 'partial', audit Link prefetch={true} behavior, preserve existing prefetched UI with…