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 agentmods add skills/ronmkr/promptbook/collaborative-document-writingnpx skills add ronmkr/PromptBook --skill collaborative-document-writinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ronmkr/PromptBookWrote 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/ronmkr/promptbook/collaborative-document-writing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ronmkr/promptbook/collaborative-document-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ronmkr/promptbook/collaborative-document-writing.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 | $0.00078 | $0.03277 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.01639 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00655 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00328 |
Grade A, and why
collaborative-document-writing 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 yesterday.
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.
This is a copy
88% identical to doc-coauthoring — 48 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 376 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Doc Co-Authoring Workflow
This skill provides a structured workflow for guiding users through collaborative document creation. Act as an active guide, walking users through three stages: Context Gathering, Refinement & Structure, and Reader Testing.
When to Offer This Workflow
Trigger conditions:
- User mentions writing documentation: "write a doc", "draft a proposal", "create a spec", "write up"
- User mentions specific doc types: "PRD", "design doc", "decision doc", "RFC"
- User seems to be starting a substantial writing task
Initial offer: Offer the user a structured workflow for co-authoring the document. Explain the three stages:
- Context Gathering: User provides all relevant context while The Agent asks clarifying questions
- Refinement & Structure: Iteratively build each section through brainstorming and editing
- Reader Testing: Test the doc with a fresh The Agent (no context) to catch blind spots before others read it
Explain that this approach helps ensure the doc works well when others read it (including when they paste it into The Agent). Ask if they want to try this workflow or prefer to work freeform.
If user declines, work freeform. If user accepts, proceed to Stage 1.
Stage 1: Context Gathering
Goal: Close the gap between what the user knows and what The Agent knows, enabling smart guidance later.
Initial Questions
Start by asking the user for meta-context about the document:
- What type of document is this? (e.g., technical spec, decision doc, proposal)
- Who's the primary audience?
- What's the desired impact when someone reads this?
- Is there a template or specific format to follow?
- Any other constraints or context to know?
Inform them they can answer in shorthand or dump information however works best for them.
If user provides a template or mentions a doc type:
- Ask if they have a template document to share
- If they provide a link to a shared document, use the appropriate integration to fetch it
- If they provide a file, read it
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.
- yesterday First seen · 376 lines · 78 tokens per session scan A e54edb046fb1
collaborative-document-writing is a skill published in the GitHub repository ronmkr/PromptBook (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 78 tokens to every session and 3,277 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to doc-coauthoring, differing in 48 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
testing
Testing workflow and quality standards for writing and running tests. Use when: (1) Writing new tests, (2) Adding a new feature that needs tests, (3) Modifying logic that has existing tests, (4) Before claiming a task is complete.
bug-audit
Weekly multi-agent audit for serious bugs (data integrity, silent caps, staleness, timestamp math, trust boundaries). Fans out Sonnet scanners + Opus deep auditors, adversarially verifies every finding, files GitHub issues for confirmed critical/high bugs. Trigger: /bug-audit.
multi-llm-review
Run complete, evidence-backed code reviews through the local stdio gateway across the seven canonical CLI providers: Claude, Codex, Gemini, Grok, Mistral, Devin, and Cursor. Use for quality, security, correctness, or release validation that requires independent reviewers.
retrospective-walk
Walk a human or agent through a diff, worktree, commit range, gateway job, or episode reference as a structured retrospective. Use after implement-review-fix or multi-LLM review cycles, when reviewing prior jobs or uncommitted work, or when durable evidence is needed for what changed, why it changed, who/when…
secure-orchestration
Orchestrate security-sensitive LLM work with the gateway's Claude-managed approval boundary, provider-native legacy controls, evidence-aware auditing, and complete no-limit review handling.
session-workflow
Manage gateway bookkeeping and provider-native conversation continuity across Claude, Codex, Gemini, Grok, Mistral, Devin, and Cursor. Use for multi-turn work, session inspection, and safe resume decisions.