Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add pitimon/8-habit-ai-dev/plugin install 8-habit-ai-devWrote 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/pitimon/8-habit-ai-dev/whole-person-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pitimon/8-habit-ai-dev/whole-person-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pitimon/8-habit-ai-dev/whole-person-check/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/pitimon/8-habit-ai-dev/whole-person-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pitimon/8-habit-ai-dev/whole-person-check.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 | $0.00055 | $0.01134 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00567 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00227 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00113 |
Grade B, and why
whole-person-check scanned grade B with 1 finding 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 today.
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.
Strips warnings and disclaimersmediumAnti-refusal
Omitting safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.
| 1 | No security review, no ethical consideration, compliance ignored | How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Whole Person Check (ประเมิน 4 มิติ)
Habit: H8 — Find Your Voice | Anti-pattern: Optimizing only for technical correctness while neglecting craft, empathy, and ethics
Why This Exists
AI-assisted development excels at Body (CI, tests) and Mind (architecture, design) but systematically neglects Heart (craft quality, user empathy) and Spirit (security conscience, ethical judgment). This assessment makes the gap visible and actionable.
Process
-
Identify the scope: What feature, component, or PR is being assessed?
-
Read the relevant code and docs: Understand what exists before scoring.
-
Score each dimension (1-5) using the indicators below:
Body (PQ/Discipline) — "Is it reliable and well-built?"
| Score | Indicator |
|---|---|
| 1 | No tests, no CI, manual everything |
| 2 | Some tests exist but gaps, CI runs but not enforced |
| 3 | CI green, tests cover core paths, coding standards followed |
| 4 | >80% coverage, automated quality gates, monitoring configured |
| 5 | Fitness functions, self-healing, chaos-tested |
Mind (IQ/Vision) — "Do we know where this is going?"
| Score | Indicator |
|---|---|
| 1 | No docs, no design rationale, ad-hoc implementation |
| 2 | README exists but outdated, some inline comments |
| 3 | Architecture documented, ADR for key decisions, roadmap clear |
| 4 | Design reviewed before implementation, tech debt tracked, patterns reusable |
| 5 | Evolutionary architecture, fitness functions, strategy aligned with business |
Heart (EQ/Passion) — "Would I want to use this?"
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.
- today Changed · +4 lines cad0505d3640
- 12d ago First seen · 110 lines · 55 tokens per session scan B 7e059c149f44
whole-person-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository pitimon/8-habit-ai-dev (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 1,134 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (strips warnings and disclaimers). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
two-axis-review
Two-axis review: Standards vs Spec, unmerged.
code-review
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use…
crap-analyzer
Use to produce a risk-based refactor + test plan for recently-changed code on a diff/branch/PR by computing CRAP (complexity × untested) on changed methods. Multi-language — TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Java, Kotlin, Go, Ruby, C#, Rust, PHP — auto-discovers how the repo generates coverage. Triggers …
github-commenting
How to post clean, rich, deduplicated GitHub PR review comments — suggestion blocks, multi-line anchors, markers, formatting rules. Load before posting or fixing any PR comment.
procoder
Work like a senior developer in a repository governed by procoder: run the commit gate before calling anything done, format and lint through the binary, and drive the spec, plan, todo, backlog, and sprint chain in .procoder/. Use this skill when the repository contains a .procoder/ directory or an AGENTS.md naming…
code-review
The depth half of a review - the dimensions a diff is read against (correctness, boundaries, concurrency, failure paths, secrets, data access, structure, test quality) and the rule that a finding is refuted before it is reported. The verdict stays with the reviewer agent. Use when reviewing a diff or a pull request…