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 receptron/mulmoterminal --skill proposegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/receptron/mulmoterminalWrote 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/receptron/mulmoterminal/propose)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/receptron/mulmoterminal/propose"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/receptron/mulmoterminal/propose/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/receptron/mulmoterminal/propose"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/receptron/mulmoterminal/propose.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 | $0.00030 | $0.00384 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00154 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00077 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
blueprint-review-propose 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 27d 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.
What it actually says
Propose fixes
The person has read the findings and approved going on. Read .blueprint/findings.json and
.blueprint/answers.json.
Never change a document under review. The check compares each one with the fingerprint the read step recorded and fails on any difference.
If proposals is 指摘だけ (findings only), there is nothing to write: run the check and stop.
For each finding
Add a proposal string to it in .blueprint/findings.json: what to change, in the document's own words —
the replacement text where it is short, and which side of a contradiction you chose and why. Where the right
answer is a business decision (which of two amounts is meant), say so and propose the wording for each
choice rather than choosing silently.
The corrected copies
For each document a finding is about, write a copy beside it named <name>.proposed<extension> (contract.txt →
contract.proposed.txt) with every proposal applied. A document with no finding needs no copy. Keep everything else as it is — numbering, headings,
the order of provisions — so the person can compare the two files line by line. Do not polish wording the
findings do not name.
The copy must not have more structure problems than the original: run
sh <base pack>/checks/chaff.sh <copy> --experimental --compact and fix any new dangling-reference,
numbering-gap or duplicate-definition (renumbering one article moves every reference to it).
Done when
node <usecase pack>/checks/findings.mjs propose passes.
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.
- 27d ago First seen · 37 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 65fb3086c993
blueprint-review-propose is a skill published in the GitHub repository receptron/mulmoterminal (245 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 384 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-28.
Other skills, from other repositories
moai-docs-generation
Documentation generation patterns for technical specs, API docs, user guides, and knowledge bases using real tools like Sphinx, MkDocs, TypeDoc, and Nextra. Use when creating docs from code, building doc sites, or automating documentation workflows.
moai-domain-html-report
Markdown-to-single-file-HTML report renderer. Six modes (status, incident, plan, explainer, financial, pr) selected by report type, crossed with three audience tiers (expert, basic, learn) derived from the active output style. The basic and learn tiers enrich the HTML with mermaid flowcharts, worked examples, and…
ase-docs-proofread
Analyze the documents for spelling, capitalization, punctuation, word break, or grammar errors. Use when the user wants to "proofread" or "spellcheck" a document.
ospec
Document-driven OSpec workflow for initialization, change/goal routing, validation, archiving, and durable project knowledge.
gdoc
Read publicly shared Google Docs using curl to download into a file.
atelier-setup
Configure a repository for Atelier's development workflow. Use only when explicitly invoked; inspect existing guidance, issue-tracker and domain-document conventions, preview the proposed configuration, and write only after approval. It does not install Atelier or initialize external tooling.