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 R2h1/my-book-skills --skill v16-vsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/R2h1/my-book-skillsWrote 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/r2h1/my-book-skills/v16-vs)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/r2h1/my-book-skills/v16-vs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/r2h1/my-book-skills/v16-vs/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/r2h1/my-book-skills/v16-vs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/r2h1/my-book-skills/v16-vs.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 | $0.00112 | $0.01981 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.00991 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00396 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00198 |
Grade A, and why
wise-risk-vs-foolish-risk 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 11d 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 — 112 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
明智风险 vs 无谓风险：辨别框架
R — 原文 (Reading)
谈到风险分析，对于最佳结果和最差结果对应着两类风险：明智的风险和无谓的风险。飞到拉斯维加斯，把一个月的薪水拿去赌博，这是无谓的风险；在高速公路上驾驶一辆刹车有问题的车，这是无谓的风险。只有承担明智的风险，避免无谓的风险，你的财富才会不断增长。明智的风险具有有限的下行空间，而其上行空间是无限的。无谓的风险具有无限的下行风险，而上行空间是有限的，至少在短期内是有限的。
— MJ·德马科, 第28章
如果你辞掉工作去投身快车道事业，这也是明智风险。你的好处是有可能成为百万富翁，坏处呢？你可能降低生活标准：自己拖地板，自己做汉堡包，吃米饭和青豆，骑自行车去买日常用品。真有那么糟糕吗？
— MJ·德马科, 第28章
I — 方法论骨架 (Interpretation)
风险不是"要不要冒"的问题，而是"冒哪种风险"的问题。德马科将风险分为两类，用上行空间和下行空间的对称性来区分：
明智风险：
- 下行空间（最坏结果）是有限的、可承受的
- 上行空间（最好结果）是无限的、不可限量的
- 你对自己的风险有控制力或影响力
- 最坏情况发生后你能恢复
无谓风险：
- 下行空间是无限的或毁灭性的
- 上行空间是有限的、短暂的
- 你对风险结果几乎没有控制力
- 最坏情况发生后你无法恢复
判断框架包含三个维度：
- 量化最坏结果：最坏情况下你会损失什么？这个损失是暂时的还是永久性的？
- 量化最好结果：最好情况下你能获得什么？这个收益是一次性的还是可持续的？
- 控制力评估：你对结果有影响吗？还是完全取决于外部因素？
A1 — 书中的应用 (Past Application)
案例：明智风险——德马科向互联网公司投资10万美元
德马科卖掉自己的互联网公司后，将部分资金投入了他被收购的那家公司。他评估认为该公司成功概率相当高——目标是将其发展成1亿美元的大公司。如果他成功，10万美元变成200万美元；如果失败，损失大约一半。坏处有限（5万美元），好处巨大（200万美元）。且他对该公司有深入了解，对结果有影响力。这是典型的明智风险。
案例：无谓风险——开850马力跑车飙车
德马科自曝年轻时开850马力的跑车在凤凰城街头飙车。好处是一时的兴奋和短暂的自我膨胀，坏处是可能造成自己或他人死亡。好处短暂有限，坏处无尽漫长。这是典型的无谓风险。
案例：明智风险——辞职创业
辞职创业的明智之处在于：最坏情况是回去找一份工作，生活方式降级（自己做饭、骑自行车、住小公寓），但这些都不是毁灭性的；最好情况是财务自由。且创业者对自己的业务有控制力。
A2 — 触发场景 (Future Trigger) ★
典型触发场景：
- 你在考虑辞职创业/借贷投资/跳槽，内心被"风险"两个字压得喘不过气
- 有人对你说"你疯了，这风险太大了"
- 你在"做"和"不做"之间反复纠结，但从未系统分析过两种结果
- 你正在考虑一个"看起来回报很高"的机会，但你描述不清最坏情况
语言信号：
- "风险太大了，我不敢"（笼统恐惧，未量化）
- "这个机会错过了就没有了"（情绪驱动，未分析上行空间）
- "大不了……"（如果"大不了"后面跟的是毁灭性后果，这就是危险信号）
与相邻技能区分：
- 与 v14（红线原则）的区别：v14帮你从"不敢行动"到"承诺行动"；v16帮你判断"应该对什么行动说不"。两者是互补的——红线推你跨门槛，风险辨别告诉你该跨哪个门槛。
- 与 v15（执行vs点子）的区别：v15讨论"是否要等完美点子"；v16讨论"具体这个行动的风险结构"。前者是战略心态，后者是战术决策。
E — 可执行步骤 (Execution)
当技能被激活后，按以下步骤执行：
-
写下最坏情况：如果这件事完全失败，你的具体损失是什么？列出量化清单（金钱、时间、人际关系、健康）。不要笼统地说"会损失很多"——要具体到数字和日期。
-
评估恢复能力：最坏情况发生后，你需要多久能恢复到当前状态？如果恢复期超过你能承受的极限（如5年），这就是无谓风险。如果恢复期在6-12个月内，通常属于可承受的明智风险。
-
写下最好情况：如果一切顺利，你能获得什么？这个收益是"一次性的"还是"可持续的"？收益是否足以改变你的人生轨迹？
-
评估控制力：你对结果有多大影响力？如果成败完全取决于外部因素（市场波动、他人决策、运气），这是无谓风险。如果你能通过自身努力显著影响结果，这是明智风险。
-
做出决定：
- 下行有限 + 上行无限 + 有控制力 = 明智风险，值得承担
- 下行无限 + 上行有限 + 无控制力 = 无谓风险，坚决避免
- 如果处于中间地带，进一步缩小风险规模后再决定
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 112 lines · 112 tokens per session scan A c789c8fc5f45
wise-risk-vs-foolish-risk is a skill published in the GitHub repository R2h1/my-book-skills (2 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 1,981 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
en-zh-translation-polish
An English-to-Chinese translation and editing process focused on natural Chinese rather than word-for-word wording.
shortfilm-prompt
Generate cinematic AI shortfilm prompts (works with Seedance 2.0, Xiaoyunque, Sora, Kling, Jimeng, Veo) using the 5-stage structure from Mx-Shell's Zombie Scavenger. Trigger when the user wants transformation sequences, multi-shot narrative shorts, weapon-charge/combat segments, emotional family/pet/farewell…
multi-agent-cn
A Chinese-language system design that makes one main agent assign tasks to five persistent subagents instead of doing the work itself.
gpt-image-2-prompt-engine
A structured prompt-writing tool for GPT-Image-2, using reusable JSON templates and a four-step workflow. It is designed for controlled commercial images such as product photos, posters, infographics, brand visuals, UI screenshots, and character designs.
simp
A relationship-advice skill that helps interpret signals, plan respectful approaches, and write sincere messages for someone you like.
chinese-write-checker
A Chinese-language review process for checking an article from an editor's, reader's, writer's, and publishing platform's viewpoints.