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 rfxlamia/pocketto --skill structured-researchgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rfxlamia/pockettoWrote 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/rfxlamia/pocketto/structured-research)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rfxlamia/pocketto/structured-research"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rfxlamia/pocketto/structured-research.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00147 | $0.02069 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00073 | $0.01035 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00414 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00207 |
Grade A, and why
structured-research 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 7d 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 — 205 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Structured Research
Validate an explicit assumption against evidence before it becomes a planning input. Take the "thing the user still treats as an assumption", frame it as a falsifiable question, research it with a chosen methodology, and return a graded, evidence-backed verdict with a non-binding recommendation the maintainer may adopt, adapt, or replace.
Core principle: An assumption is not evidence. Evidence is not a verdict. A verdict is advisory, not a decree.
Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of structured research.
When to Use
Trigger when:
- A belief is still an assumption — "I think X works this way", "this library probably supports Y", "Z is the fast path"
- An assumption is about to enter planning/development unvalidated and the cost of being wrong is real
- The user says "validate this", "is it true that…", "research whether…", "verify my assumption"
Do NOT use:
- To generate or explore ideas (→
pocket-pitching/pocket-grinding— those diverge, this validates) - To fix a known defect (→
bug-hunting) - When the claim is already settled and just needs implementing (→
hotfix)
Boundary with pitching / grinding
| structured-research | pocket-pitching / pocket-grinding |
|---|---|
| Tests whether a stated assumption holds | Generates and explores ideas |
| Convergent — narrows to a verdict | Divergent — widens the option space |
| Output: graded verdict + evidence | Output: directions / spec |
| Single explicit assumption in | Vague problem in |
The Three Iron Laws
LAW 1: NO VERDICT WITHOUT EVIDENCE
A graded conclusion must cite the sources/observations behind it.
LAW 2: SEEK REFUTATION, NOT JUST CONFIRMATION
At least one selected method must actively try to disprove the assumption.
LAW 3: THE VERDICT IS ADVISORY
Output a recommendation, never a mandate. The maintainer decides.
Hard Gates
GATE 0: PREFLIGHT MUST COMPLETE BEFORE GREETING.
Scan project context silently. No output until greeting.
GATE 1: NO RESEARCH without a confirmed, operationalized assumption.
Phase 1 ends with the user confirming the restated, falsifiable question.
Silence or vague approval is not confirmation.
GATE 2: AT LEAST ONE REFUTATION METHOD selected (Law 2).
A research run that only seeks confirmation is invalid.
GATE 3: CURATION GATE before grading.
After evidence is gathered, run the curation pass (advisor) — see Phase 4.
Do not grade straight from raw evidence.
GATE 4: VERDICT MUST BE GRADED + ADVISORY.
Confirmed / Refuted / Inconclusive, with cited evidence, framed non-binding.
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 205 lines · 147 tokens per session scan A 4497e38c91cb
structured-research is a skill published in the GitHub repository rfxlamia/pocketto (5 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 147 tokens to every session and 2,069 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
independent-review-loop
Independent review loop run before delivery in code work. An independent reviewer (Codex, or fresh Codex-style subagents) reads the whole PR against the approved outcome; the lead fixes in-scope functional findings and re-reviews until none remain. Its differentiator is independence and exhaustiveness — a reviewer…
resolve-dispute
Resolves stuck review findings via a put-up-or-concede exchange. Invoked by the facilitator when a finding survives arbitration without new evidence.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.
techdebt
Analyze Elixir/Phoenix technical debt — duplicates, refactoring opportunities, credo issues. Use when asked about code quality, cleanup, or what to improve.
great_cto
Use when the CTO describes a feature, task, or project goal. Orchestrates the full SDLC pipeline automatically based on project type.