Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to saski/arnesto. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/saski/arnesto/main/.agents/skills/thinking-in-bets/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/saski/arnestoWrote 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/saski/arnesto/thinking-in-bets)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/saski/arnesto/thinking-in-bets"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saski/arnesto/thinking-in-bets.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 | $0.00076 | $0.00492 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00038 | $0.00246 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00098 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00049 |
Grade A, and why
thinking-in-bets 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 3d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to thinking-in-bets — 0 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.
What it actually says
Domain Context
This skill implements a proven product management framework. The approach combines best practices from industry leaders and is designed for practical application in day-to-day PM work.
Input Requirements
- Context about your product, feature, or problem
- Relevant data, research, or constraints (recommended but optional)
- Clear articulation of what you're trying to achieve
Thinking in Bets
What It Is
Thinking in Bets is a framework for improving decision quality by separating decisions from outcomes. The core insight: a good decision can have a bad outcome, and a bad decision can have a good outcome—luck is always involved.
Most people judge decisions by their outcomes (called "resulting"). This is backwards. You can only control the quality of your decision, not the outcome.
The key shifts:
- Move from "Was I right?" to "Was my thinking process good?"
- Move from "What happened?" to "What did I know at the time?"
- Move from implicit assumptions to explicit, testable beliefs
When to Use It
Use Thinking in Bets when you need to:
- Evaluate past decisions without outcome bias clouding judgment
- Make decisions under uncertainty where luck will influence results
- Improve team decision-making in meetings and planning
- Set up pre-mortems and kill criteria for projects
- Shorten feedback loops on decisions with delayed outcomes
- Reduce cognitive biases like overconfidence, hindsight bias, and sunk cost
- Run better meetings that surface true opinions, not groupthink
When Not to Use It
- The decision is trivial with low stakes
- You have perfect information (rare)
- You're looking for permission to take a risk you've already decided on
Resources
Books:
- Thinking in Bets by Annie Duke
- Quit: The Power of Knowing When to Walk Away by Annie Duke
- Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 54 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A a7b6e515afa1
thinking-in-bets is a skill published in the GitHub repository saski/arnesto (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed Unlicense. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 492 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to thinking-in-bets, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
readonly-review
Run a no-network read-only review practice with two explorer steps and one synthesis step.
repo-harness-assessment
Use when evaluating repository agent-readiness, mapping harness roles, choosing the next smallest improvement, or designing and reconciling agent entrypoints such as AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md, Cursor rules, or GitHub instructions.
work-state-and-delivery
Use when designing or reconciling design docs, task boards, external trackers, execution plans, delivery records, handoffs, review evidence, task-to-change traceability, or repository commit-coupling policy.
repo-contracts-and-boundaries
Use when turning architecture, layering, ownership, dependency direction, schemas, structural metrics, quality thresholds, baselines, allowlists, or generated quality snapshots into repository checks.
runtime-evidence-and-tracing
Use when connecting observed behavior, logs, metrics, request IDs, run IDs, screenshots, traces, external dependency results, or artifacts into a runtime evidence loop.
validation-harness-design
Use when designing repository validation commands, doctor scripts, test matrices, JSON or JUnit outputs, CI gates, smoke checks, or harness command surfaces.