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/rustykuntz/clideck/research-experimentnpx skills add rustykuntz/clideck --skill research-experimentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rustykuntz/clideckWrote 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/rustykuntz/clideck/research-experiment)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rustykuntz/clideck/research-experiment"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rustykuntz/clideck/research-experiment.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 | $0.00062 | $0.02250 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.01125 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00450 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00225 |
Grade A, and why
research-experiment 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 — 225 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Research Experiment
Use this skill to run parallel, autonomous experiments safely.
There are two roles:
- Main Agent: owns the research brief, workspace setup, researcher prompts, verification, and merge decision.
- Experiment Agent: owns independent exploration inside one assigned worktree and must not redefine the experiment.
If the user says "you are the main agent", follow the Main Agent Role. If the user says "you are an experiment agent" or "researcher agent", follow the Experiment Agent Role.
Main Agent Role
The main agent defines the experiment and coordinates researchers. It must not let each researcher invent different goals or acceptance criteria.
Main Agent Workflow
-
Convert the user request into an experiment brief:
- Goal: the outcome to achieve.
- Acceptance criteria: exact tests, benchmarks, or review gates.
- Hard constraints: what must not change.
- Quality bar: what counts as meaningful progress versus noise.
- Shared resources: ports, GPUs, model caches, services, datasets, credentials, or external APIs.
- Stop conditions: when researchers may quit.
-
Identify the production repository root:
- Use
git rev-parse --show-toplevelwhen inside a git repo. - If the project has nested repos, identify which repo owns the files under experiment.
- Do not assume the current working directory is the repo root.
- Use
-
Create per-researcher worktrees inside the project folder, not beside it:
- Prefer a project-local directory such as
<project>/.research-worktrees/<slug>-<n>. - Keep worktree directories inside the main project folder so agents do not need extra filesystem permissions.
- Do not create sibling worktrees such as
../project_research_1unless the user explicitly asks. - Never point a researcher at the production checkout for edits.
- Use unique branches, for example
research/<slug>-1,research/<slug>-2.
- Prefer a project-local directory such as
-
Give every researcher the same goal and rules:
- Do not assign fixed technical roles unless the user explicitly asks.
- Let each researcher decide the approach and iterate independently.
- Include the exact worktree path, branch, allowed edit scope, forbidden files, verification commands, and report format.
- Save the canonical brief to the experiment folder before dispatching researchers.
What ships with it
1 file 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 · 225 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A acec6b39184b
research-experiment is a skill published in the GitHub repository rustykuntz/clideck (154 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 2,250 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
repo-hygiene
Use when the scheduled repo-hygiene workflow runs from GitHub Actions (or an operator dry-run) to scan the repository for small, certain docs/test/code hygiene issues and fix them as one batched branch.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
loop
Full execution protocol for MODE: LOOP — the compound-engineering loop: brainstorm → plan → build → review → improve, iterating under defense-in-depth stop conditions with generator/critic separation, durable resumable state, and mandatory compounding learning capture. Loaded on demand by the architect when the loop…
safe-extraction
Apply when extracting code from a large monolith file into submodules. Covers barrel re-exports, internals DI seam proxy patterns, CI invariant allowlist updates, and cross-file test verification. Prevents CI failures, broken imports, and test regressions from code extraction.
bundle-safety
Bundle transform safety — minification variant selection, consumer-constraint verification, identifier preservation, and namespace re-export coverage for build output.