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 OutlineDriven/outline-driven-development --skill doubt-drivengit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/OutlineDriven/outline-driven-developmentWrote 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/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/doubt-driven)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/doubt-driven"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/doubt-driven/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/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/doubt-driven"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/outlinedriven/outline-driven-development/doubt-driven.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00041 | $0.01287 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00643 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00257 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00129 |
Grade A, and why
doubt-driven 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 2d 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Doubt-driven development
Contract
| Field | Bound contract |
|---|---|
| Trigger | Non-trivial decision under uncertainty; correctness matters more than speed; a claim not checkable by the type system or compiler; before committing non-trivial code |
| Authority | Read-only. No file, VCS, credential, paid, published, deployed, or remote mutation. |
| Side effect | Chat output: fresh-context adversarial review findings and reconciliation |
| Done | Every non-trivial decision named as a CLAIM and fresh-context reviewed; findings classified; a stop condition met |
Inputs
- Artifact (required): the unit under scrutiny: a code diff, function, decision proposal, or assertion plus its supporting evidence.
- Contract (required): the constraint the artifact must satisfy.
Procedure
-
CLAIM. Name the non-trivial decision compactly as
CLAIM: "<statement>"plusWHY THIS MATTERS: <consequence>. A decision that cannot be stated that compactly is a vibe, not a decision; surface it before scrutinizing. Done when: the decision is stated as a compact CLAIM with its consequence. -
EXTRACT. Isolate the smallest reviewable unit: the artifact and the contract, without the reviewer's reasoning. Passing conclusions to the reviewer invites validation of those conclusions. Decompose a 500-line PR first; the unit must fit one read. Done when: the smallest reviewable unit is isolated and fits one read.
-
DOUBT. Spawn a fresh-context subagent with isolated context using this adversarial prompt verbatim so it overrides any default balanced response shape:
Adversarial review. Find what is wrong with this artifact. Assume the author is overconfident. Look for: - Unstated assumptions - Edge cases not handled - Hidden coupling or shared state - Ways the contract could be violated - Existing conventions this might break - Failure modes under unexpected input Do NOT validate. Do NOT summarize. Find issues, or state explicitly that none could be found after thorough examination. ARTIFACT: <paste artifact> CONTRACT: <paste contract>
What ships with it
2 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.
- 2d ago Changed · -10 tokens per session 03c694754d94
- 5d ago First seen · 65 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 3b641038c85e
doubt-driven is a skill published in the GitHub repository OutlineDriven/outline-driven-development (52 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 1,287 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
audit-project
Run an iterative multi-agent code audit until critical and high findings are resolved. Use when the user says "audit my code", "find all the bugs", "deep code audit", "iterative review", or "review until clean".
gsd-ns-review
Route to the appropriate quality / review skill based on the user's intent. gsd-code-review-fix was absorbed by gsd-code-review --fix in #2790.
dorodango
Polishes working code through successive quality passes in fresh subagents. Use after tests pass when code needs multi-dimension refinement before release.
java-code-review
Review Java code for bugs, duplicate code, correctness risks, maintainability improvements, and missing tests. By default review files modified in git; when the user explicitly names files, classes, packages, or a diff, review that scope instead. Generate a detailed review.md report with actionable comments and fixes.
karpathy-guidelines
Surgical execution guardrails for coding, debugging, review, and refactor tasks.
ring:searching-code
Forensic code search and analysis with optional Chain of Draft (CoD) ultra-concise mode. Five-phase methodology (clarification, planning, execution, analysis, synthesis) with severity assessment. Use for targeted investigation of specific patterns, bugs, or vulnerabilities. Skip for broad architecture mapping (use…