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 agentmods add skills/peterblazejewicz/claude-plugins/doubt-driven-developmentnpx skills add peterblazejewicz/claude-plugins --skill doubt-driven-developmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/peterblazejewicz/claude-pluginsWrote 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/peterblazejewicz/claude-plugins/doubt-driven-development)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/peterblazejewicz/claude-plugins/doubt-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/peterblazejewicz/claude-plugins/doubt-driven-development.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00074 | $0.04168 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.02084 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00834 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00417 |
Grade A, and why
doubt-driven-development 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 4d 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.
This is a copy
92% identical to doubt-driven-development — 40 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 258 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Doubt-Driven Development
Overview
A confident answer is not a correct one. Long sessions accumulate context that quietly turns assumptions into "facts" without anyone noticing. Doubt-driven development is the discipline of materializing a fresh-context reviewer — biased to disprove, not approve — before any non-trivial output stands.
This is not /review. /review is a verdict on a finished artifact. This is an in-flight posture: non-trivial decisions get cross-examined while course-correction is still cheap.
When to Use
A decision is non-trivial when at least one of these is true:
- It introduces or modifies branching logic
- It crosses a module, project, or service boundary (
MyApp.Core→MyApp.Infrastructure, a Minimal API surface, a queue consumer) - It asserts a property the type system or compiler cannot verify (thread safety, idempotence, ordering, invariants, nullable-reference honesty,
asynccancellation correctness) - Its correctness depends on context the future reader cannot see
- Its blast radius is irreversible (production deploy, destructive EF Core migration, public/library API change)
Apply the skill when:
- About to make an architectural decision under uncertainty
- About to commit non-trivial code
- About to claim a non-obvious fact ("this is thread-safe", "this scales", "this matches the spec")
- Working in code you don't fully understand
When NOT to use:
- Mechanical operations (renaming, formatting, file moves,
dotnet format) - Following a clear, unambiguous user instruction
- Reading or summarizing existing code
- One-line changes with obvious correctness
- Pure tooling operations (running
dotnet test, listing files) - The user has explicitly asked for speed over verification
If you doubt every keystroke, you ship nothing. The skill applies only to non-trivial decisions as defined above.
Loading Constraints
This skill is designed for the main-session orchestrator, where Step 3 (DOUBT, detailed below) can spawn a fresh-context reviewer.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 258 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 116b14b6591a
doubt-driven-development is a skill published in the GitHub repository peterblazejewicz/claude-plugins (7 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 4,168 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to doubt-driven-development, differing in 40 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
ai-ready
ANALYSIS SKILL — Analyze any repository and generate AI-ready configuration — AGENTS.md, copilot-instructions.md, skills, CI workflows, issue templates. WHEN: "make this repo ai-ready", "set up AI config", "add copilot instructions", "prepare this repo for AI contributions", "generate AGENTS.md". INVOKES: glob, grep…
oda-copilot-customization
Apply, review, improve, or maintain a repository's Copilot customization with the Ownership-Driven AI Customization Architecture and the latest official GitHub Copilot docs. Use when shaping or auditing a repository's customization map, governance files, supporting docs, and safeguards for drift, health, weak…
oda-task-tracking
Operate ODA GitHub Issues and the ODA Board consistently. Use when creating, updating, listing, moving, or reclassifying tracked work in GitHub for this repository.
impact-review
Assess likely downstream impact, decide what should be reconciled now versus carried forward explicitly, and keep the repository coherent without sweeping every related surface.
debug-behavior
Investigate inconsistent or incorrect behavior with a structured workflow.
validate-pr-review-comments
Inspect and evaluate GitHub PR review comments, respond with a clear technical position, and implement only valid feedback. Use when asked to review PR comments, respond to reviewers, address reviewer feedback, or make changes based on PR feedback.