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 Snowflake-Labs/cocoplus --skill adversary-gapgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Snowflake-Labs/cocoplusWrote 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/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/adversary-gap)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/adversary-gap"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/adversary-gap/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/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/adversary-gap"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/adversary-gap.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00248 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00124 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00050 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
adversary-gap 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 5d 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.
What it actually says
Your objective is to implement $adversary gap [--add "<gap>"] [--close <id>].
Track known blind spots in .cocoplus/adversary/gaps.md. Gap changes require timestamp, source, status, and reason. Closing a gap must point to evidence.
Anti-Rationalization
| Shortcut / Temptation | Why It Fails |
|---|---|
| Treat the skill as complete because the file exists | Skill contracts must describe observable behavior and verification, not just command names. |
| Skip artifact and safety checks for a small command | Small commands still mutate state or guide execution; preserve the same gates. |
Exit Criteria
- Command behavior matches the owning feature contract.
- Required reads, writes, and user-visible outputs are described.
- Safety, governance, and artifact constraints are preserved.
- Missing state produces a clear, non-destructive result.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 28 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 6181bab07e7f
adversary-gap is a skill published in the GitHub repository Snowflake-Labs/cocoplus (720 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 248 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
cross-review
Verify an implementer's diff with an INDEPENDENT, different-vendor sub-agent (diff plus contract only); turn blocking issues into fix-tasks and loop until clean.
factory-rereview
Re-review a pull request after a push — reconcile the previous review against the new commits, look for new defects the push introduced, then a fresh pass over the whole PR, and finish with a verdict on the PR.
understand-pr
Guided interactive PR review — understand the history and context before forming opinions.
performance-review
Performance-focused code review for identifying bottlenecks and optimization opportunities.
security-review
Security-focused code review checklist for identifying vulnerabilities.
programming-principles
Apply distilled coding principles from 14 classic software books to code review, refactoring, design, and implementation decisions. Do not use for language- or framework-specific tutorials, tool manuals, or tasks already governed by a project's established conventions.