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 TheSylvester/agentic-coding-tools --skill fusionthinkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TheSylvester/agentic-coding-toolsWrote 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/thesylvester/agentic-coding-tools/fusionthink)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/thesylvester/agentic-coding-tools/fusionthink"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/thesylvester/agentic-coding-tools/fusionthink/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/thesylvester/agentic-coding-tools/fusionthink"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/thesylvester/agentic-coding-tools/fusionthink.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 | $0.00092 | $0.02151 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00037 | $0.00860 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00430 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00215 |
Grade A, and why
fusionthink 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 2mo 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 — 196 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fusionthink
Two independent reviewers from different vendors read the same brief. You verify what they say against the actual code, push back where it does not hold up, and let each vendor settle the other's disputes.
Requires the sibling skills claude-agent and codex-agent, plus both
vendor CLIs (claude and codex) installed and authenticated. Without both
lanes this skill has no reason to exist — use a single reviewer instead.
Detect intent
Read the user's request and determine which mode applies:
-
Review — the user wants opinions, analysis, feedback. Phrases like "review this", "what do you think", "check this", "analyze", "find issues". You report findings. The user decides what to act on.
-
Converge — the user wants the artifact fixed until it's done. Phrases like "fix this", "make it ready", "keep going until done", "exhaustively fix", "fix until both agents agree", "make edits and review until LGTM". You edit the artifact, re-review, and loop until both agents say it's ready.
If ambiguous, default to review. The user can always say "now fix it."
Figure out the subject
Read, grep, diff — whatever it takes to understand what the user wants reviewed or fixed. Could be a plan file, source files, uncommitted changes, a design question, anything. Compose a single review/analysis prompt that gives the agent enough context to do real work — point it at the actual files, explain what we're looking at and why, and tell it to read the code itself.
Do not enter plan mode. Do not pre-plan phases. Just start.
Dispatch both agents in parallel
Write the prompt to one temp file with a unique stub so concurrent runs
cannot collide — for example fusionthink-<timestamp>-<random>.md in the
system temp directory. Both agents read that same file.
Launch both wrappers in the same message, both in the background, using
PROMPT_FILE so the brief reaches each reviewer byte-exact on stdin:
- claude:
PROMPT_FILE=<brief> node "~/.claude/skills/claude-agent/scripts/claude-agent.mjs" - codex:
PROMPT_FILE=<brief> node "~/.claude/skills/codex-agent/scripts/codex-agent.mjs"
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 196 lines · 92 tokens per session scan A 2f984d44795a
fusionthink is a skill published in the GitHub repository TheSylvester/agentic-coding-tools (5 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 92 tokens to every session and 2,151 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…