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 shennawardana23/skillme --skill doubt-driven-developmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shennawardana23/skillmeWrote 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/shennawardana23/skillme/doubt-driven-development)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shennawardana23/skillme/doubt-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shennawardana23/skillme/doubt-driven-development/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/shennawardana23/skillme/doubt-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shennawardana23/skillme/doubt-driven-development.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 | $0.00081 | $0.01933 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00966 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00387 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00193 |
Grade A, and why
doubt-driven-development 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 8d 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 — 179 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Doubt-Driven Development
A confident answer is not a correct one. Long sessions accumulate context that quietly turns assumptions into "facts" without anyone noticing. Doubt-driven development materializes a fresh-context reviewer — biased to disprove, not approve — before a non-trivial output stands. This is not a final code review: a final review judges a finished artifact, while this is an in-flight posture applied while course-correction is still cheap.
When to use
A decision is non-trivial when at least one is true: it introduces or modifies branching logic; it crosses a module or service boundary; it asserts a property the compiler/type system can't verify (thread safety, idempotence, ordering, invariants); its correctness depends on context a future reader can't see; its blast radius is irreversible (production deploy, data migration, public API change).
Don't use it for: mechanical operations (renaming, formatting, moving files), a clear unambiguous instruction, reading or summarizing existing code, a one-line change with obvious correctness, or when the user has explicitly asked for speed over verification. Doubting every keystroke means shipping nothing.
The process
CLAIM ──→ EXTRACT ──→ DOUBT ──→ RECONCILE ──→ STOP
1. CLAIM — name what stands
State the decision in two or three lines:
CLAIM: "The new caching layer is thread-safe under the read-heavy
workload described in the spec."
WHY IT MATTERS: a race here corrupts user data and is hard to
detect in QA.
If you can't write the claim that compactly, it's a vibe, not a decision — surface it before scrutinizing it.
2. EXTRACT — the smallest reviewable unit
A fresh-context reviewer needs the artifact and the contract, not the journey that produced them: the diff or function (not the whole file), the proposal in 3-5 sentences plus the constraints it must satisfy. Strip your own reasoning — handing over conclusions gets back validation of those conclusions, not independent scrutiny. If the unit is too large to hold in mind in one read (a 500-line PR), decompose first.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 179 lines · 81 tokens per session scan A 179e2e6c0c33
doubt-driven-development is a skill published in the GitHub repository shennawardana23/skillme (2 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 81 tokens to every session and 1,933 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation.
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
review-loop
Bounded review-apply-resolve convergence loop for a GitHub PR (draft PRs are fine). Runs up to N=5 iterations of pr-reviewer → implement-suggestion (--resolve-all) → polish simplify, converging until every review thread is resolved — through a fix OR a reply (answered question, recorded rationale) — so the PR is left…
implement-suggestion
Implements review-comment suggestions across one or more PRs. Multi-PR mode (default when $ARGUMENTS contains PR URLs; empty $ARGUMENTS auto-detects the active PR) per PR: resolves a worktree, fetches every actionable comment from both human teammates AND AI code-review bots (claude[bot], coderabbitai[bot], …)…
create-pr
Generates a short, narrative GitHub pull request description (≤ 25 lines, hard ceiling 40), pushes the branch, opens the PR as a draft, then runs review-loop (pr-reviewer → implement-suggestion → polish simplify, up to 5 iterations) until every review thread is resolved via fix or reply. Scale down with --no-review…
confidence
Rates confidence that the current work fully solves the stated requirement. Supports plan validation, code review, and analysis (root-cause, refactor, diagnose) modes. Plan mode combines LLM judgment with deterministic rule checks (multi-signal gate); a failed rule caps the gate at 89% regardless of LLM score. Use…