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 PostOakLabs/ainumbers --skill dora-incident-in-four-hoursgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PostOakLabs/ainumbersWrote 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/postoaklabs/ainumbers/dora-incident-in-four-hours)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/postoaklabs/ainumbers/dora-incident-in-four-hours"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/postoaklabs/ainumbers/dora-incident-in-four-hours/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/postoaklabs/ainumbers/dora-incident-in-four-hours"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/postoaklabs/ainumbers/dora-incident-in-four-hours.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 | $0.00048 | $0.00597 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00239 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00119 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
dora-incident-in-four-hours 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 15d 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 — 42 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
DORA incident in four hours
Classify this incident under DORA, simulate the ICT cascade, produce the escalation record.
Prompt
The first four hours of a DORA incident, with every classification step receipted.
- Write the incident facts as known at hour zero (system, impact, detection time). Facts only; no cause speculation.
- Call classify_dora_incident. Record the classification and the reporting clocks it starts, with their deadlines.
- Call simulate_ict_cascade from the affected service. Record the downstream services hit and the order they fall over.
- Run the chain dora-escalation-demo with run_chain for the composed escalation verdict. Record execution_hash.
- Re-run the classification with detection time shifted by one hour; quote how the deadlines move. That sensitivity is what you communicate to the crisis team.
- build_session_receipt over the classification and cascade; anchor the receipt root with anchor_stamp.
- Give me the ledger link and the OTS receipt.
- Write the escalation record for the incident channel: classification, clocks, cascade list, both receipts, and the one line stating which facts are confirmed versus assumed. Call shape: every ChainGraph node tool takes its arguments nested under one wrapper object, e.g. {"policy_parameters": { ... }}; flat arguments are discarded by schema validation. If a named tool is not in your tool list, call call_tool with { "name": "", "arguments": { … } }. It runs the same validation and returns the same receipt. GPU note: the simulate_ict_cascade tool computes in your browser, so the MCP endpoint returns no execution_hash; export the Policy Mandate artifact the page produces and pass that full artifact to verify_execution_hash as claimed_hash.
How to run
Connect an MCP-capable host to https://mcp.ainumbers.co/mcp, then give the prompt above to the assistant.
Use synthetic inputs only. Never paste personal or production data.
Verify what came back
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.
- 15d ago Changed 7c6e5edfe87e
- 19d ago First seen · 42 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 19ed14615a7d
dora-incident-in-four-hours is a skill published in the GitHub repository PostOakLabs/ainumbers (11 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 597 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-27.
Other skills, from other repositories
fsi-compliance-checker
Maps code, architecture, and infrastructure changes to specific control IDs in PCI-DSS v4.0 and MAS TRM (Singapore financial regulator), producing an audit-traceable findings report with per-control remediation.
stateramp-expert
StateRAMP expert for state and local government cloud services. Deep knowledge of State Risk and Authorization Management Program including Low/Moderate impact levels, NIST 800-53 controls, state-specific requirements, FedRAMP alignment, and multi-state authorization strategies.
onboarding
Full KYC customer onboarding with mandatory Step 0 independent verification (5+1 searches), 17 sequential stagegates requiring explicit analyst consent, deterministic four-factor risk scoring, case folder auto-creation, 4-sheet Excel dashboard, 17-section PDF report, and immutable audit trail. Covers UK/EU (AMLD5), US…
risk-assessment
Deterministic heuristic risk scoring using a four-factor weighted model (Geographic 30%, Customer 35%, Product 25%, Channel 10%) aligned with Basel III, EBA Guidelines, FATF standards, and FinCEN guidance. Bands: LOW (0-20), MEDIUM (21-60), HIGH (61-80), CRITICAL (81-100).
screening
Comprehensive sanctions and PEP screening against 12+ databases (OFAC, EU, UK, UN, INTERPOL) with false positive assessment, HITL decision gates, and regulatory-compliant documentation.
refresh
Periodic customer refresh with re-verification of original due diligence to detect material changes and maintain compliance with ongoing due diligence requirements. Triggers include time-based review (annual HIGH risk, 2-3 year intervals for MEDIUM/LOW), risk-based escalation (score changes, business pivots), and…