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 pjt222/agent-almanac --skill assess-contextgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanacWrote 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/pjt222/agent-almanac/assess-context)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pjt222/agent-almanac/assess-context"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pjt222/agent-almanac/assess-context/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/pjt222/agent-almanac/assess-context"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pjt222/agent-almanac/assess-context.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Anti-Refusal · line 52 Skill instructs the agent to omit warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Stripping safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.Fix: Remove instructions that suppress warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Let the agent surface safety-relevant caveats to the user.
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 | $0.03425 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.01370 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00685 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00343 |
Grade A, and why
assess-context 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 1mo 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 — 264 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Assess Context
Evaluate the current reasoning context for malleability — identifying which elements are rigid (cannot change), which are flexible (can change cheaply), where transformation pressure is building, and whether the current approach has the capacity to adapt if needed.
When to Use
- When a complex task feels stuck and it is unclear whether to push through or pivot
- Before a significant approach change to assess whether the current reasoning structure can support it
- When accumulated workarounds suggest the underlying approach may be wrong
- After
healorawarenesshas identified drift but the appropriate response (continue, adjust, or rebuild) is unclear - When context has grown long and it is unclear how much can be preserved versus how much needs to be rebuilt
- Periodic structural health check during extended multi-step tasks
Inputs
- Required: Current task context and reasoning state (available implicitly)
- Optional: Specific concern triggering the assessment (e.g., "I keep adding workarounds")
- Optional: Proposed pivot direction (what might the approach need to become?)
- Optional: Previous assessment results for trend analysis
Procedure
Step 1: Inventory Reasoning Form
Catalog the structural components of the current reasoning approach without judgment.
Structural Inventory Table:
┌────────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────────────────────────┐
│ Component │ Type │ Description │
├────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Main task │ Skeleton │ The user's core request — cannot │
│ │ │ change without user direction │
├────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Sub-task breakdown │ Flesh │ How the task is decomposed — │
│ │ │ can be restructured │
├────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Tool strategy │ Flesh │ Which tools are being used and │
│ │ │ in what order — can be changed │
├────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Output plan │ Flesh/Skel │ The expected deliverable format │
│ │ │ — may be constrained by user │
│ │ │ expectations │
├────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Key assumptions │ Skeleton │ Facts treated as given — may be │
│ │ │ wrong but are load-bearing │
├────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Constraints │ Skeleton │ Hard limits (user-imposed, tool │
│ │ │ limitations, time) │
├────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Workarounds │ Scar tissue │ Patches for things that didn't │
│ │ │ work as expected — signals of │
│ │ │ structural stress │
└────────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────────────────────────┘
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 264 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A 8ac2a89047c4
assess-context is a skill published in the GitHub repository pjt222/agent-almanac (42 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 3,425 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
execute-phase
Step executor for units whose triage (unit-lane) decided which steps the unit needs. Implements one triaged step (or all remaining steps), with frozen acceptance, step-local gates, commits, red-gate repair, and diff-size guard. BREAKING: replaced PLAN.md/TASKS.md/progress.md/ACCEPTANCE.md with the unit doc's Tasks…
fold-findings
Repair persisted fix-now findings in compatible atomic batches: root-cause fixes, green gate, commit/push, and per-row folded: yes updates. Never reclassify or substitute backlog notes. Triggers: "fold-findings", "fix the review findings", "repair audit blockers".
init-workspace
Adapt the workflow scaffold to a new repository or add only missing substrate blocks to an existing install. Every install, hook, and overwrite needs explicit consent. Triggers: "init-workspace", "set up agentic workflow", "upgrade workflow scaffold".
unit-lane
One-shot lane conductor for a delivery unit: triage, implement, evidence, and close in a single document. Triggers: "unit-lane", "run the lane", "work on this feature/fix", "build this unit".
audit-pr
Audit a whole PR against the delivery contract and return MERGE-READY or evidenced blockers with the full URL. Consumes the current review-change REVIEW-PASS receipt instead of re-running review axes; posts a SHA-bound ready comment; never edits or merges. Triggers: "audit-pr", "is this PR ready", "merge gate".
product-audit
Audit the whole product across code, quality, process, docs, roadmap, and tooling; it owns the repo-wide bug hunt, security research, and broken-version investigation (scoped and budgeted per dimension, as distinct from review-change's change-scoped review). Persist one severity-ranked, F-numbered report with…