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 thkt/dotclaude --skill censusgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/thkt/dotclaudeWrote 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/thkt/dotclaude/census)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/thkt/dotclaude/census"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/thkt/dotclaude/census/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/thkt/dotclaude/census"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/thkt/dotclaude/census.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 | $0.00060 | $0.01774 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00710 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00355 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00177 |
Grade A, and why
census 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 1mo 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 — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/census - DR ギャップ監査
入力
$ARGUMENTS は監査スコープを表す任意のパス。何を集めるかは Phase 1 の表が定める。スコープを限定したときは、レポート Summary の Scope 行に対象を記録する。
判定基準
判定基準はすべて ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/decision-criteria.md にある。impact/reversibility、incomplete-contract の定義、DR 化価値の経験則、challenge 観点がそこに入る。
Phase 1: 収集
source は ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/list-source-files.ts を実行して列挙する。doc は ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/detection-targets.md のファイルパターンでスキャンする。source が目安の 20 件を超えるときは、Phase 2 の reviewer を並列起動する前に AskUserQuestion で絞り込みを確認する。選択肢はサブディレクトリ、上位 N 件、特定モジュールなど。どちらの系統もどこを見るかは下表が定める。
| $ARGUMENTS | source | doc |
|---|---|---|
| なし | リポジトリルート | トップ階層と docs/ 配下 |
| ディレクトリ | そのパス | その subtree |
| ファイル | そのファイル 1 件 | 集めない |
Phase 2: 発掘
検出事項は ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/templates/report-template.md の表の列で記録する。source 由来は Source File Decisions、doc 由来は Prose Document Decisions。根拠はコメント、命名、module-doc、commit のいずれかで、commit 由来は commit <sha> と書く。
Step 1: source から
コード内部と git 履歴の 2 系統から集める。git 履歴は /census 自身が git log --follow --format='%h %s' -- <file> を 1 回実行し、決定動詞を含む commit を抽出する。決定動詞の一覧は ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/detection-targets.md にある。コード内部は各ソースファイルの言語に合う reviewer subagent を Agent で起動し、次に答えさせる。
- なぜこのファイルはこの粒度・形になっているか
- コードから読み取れない不変条件や契約を担っているか
- 根拠を記録したコメントや module-doc があるか
- コメントが現状だけを述べ、将来の貢献者向けのルールを欠く
incomplete-contractパターンに該当しないか
Step 2: doc から
検出された各ドキュメントについて、決定動詞を含む文を検索し、各一致を候補化する。
Phase 3: DR 照合
Phase 2 の全候補を既存 DR と相互参照する。覆われた候補は除外し、除外件数を Summary に "DR-covered (excluded)" として記録する。照合するのは DR ディレクトリがあるときで、無ければ全候補がそのまま Phase 4 へ進む。
Phase 4: 判定
Step 1: タグ付けと初期ランク付け
各候補に impact と reversibility を付与する。昇格させるかは下表を上から順に判定し、最初に該当した扱いを採る。
| 条件 | 扱い |
|---|---|
incomplete-contract=Yes |
昇格する。documented? は問わない |
(impact = H) AND (reversibility = low OR medium) |
昇格する |
| それ以外 | 記録するが昇格しない |
What ships with it
4 files 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.
- 1mo ago Changed 9adacc07bea1
- 1mo ago First seen · 98 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A c6f38707e3a0
census is a skill published in the GitHub repository thkt/dotclaude (12 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 1,774 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
team-management-receiving-feedback
How to receive code review as technical evaluation rather than social performance — verify claims against the codebase before implementing, push back with evidence, and drop the performative agreement. Use when responding to a human reviewer, a PR comment, or another AI reviewer, and when deciding whether a suggestion…
review
Adversarial design review of a System Design Doc. Interrogates the staff questions, finds the cost-explosion and failure risks, returns a verdict. Sensors and evals gate.
council
Five independent critic subagents in parallel on an idea, plan, design, R&R strategy, grant, or SKILL.md, then a synthesis pass that ranks findings by how much of the argument rests on them, never by vote count. A markdown work plan gets the plan roster (assumptions, pre-mortem, what to delete, alternatives per piece…
pr-reviewer
Review pull requests with full context. Fetches linked Jira tickets, Figma designs, and Notion docs via MCP, spawns parallel subagents for systematic code review (correctness, security, tests, SOLID, clean code), then drafts friendly, humanized GitHub-ready comments. Use when reviewing PRs, examining code changes, or…
implementation-review
Pre-commit quality gate. Invoke before every git commit, after /flagrare:staleness-audit. Seven checks, plan gaps, use-case coverage gaps, missing test scenarios, test philosophy violations (Kent Dodds Testing Trophy), SOLID violations, Clean Code violations, and security vulnerabilities. Each check is delegated to a…
security-audit
Focused security review of a change. Finds HIGH-CONFIDENCE, concretely exploitable vulnerabilities in the staged diff (injection, broken authn/authz, secrets and data exposure, unsafe deserialization, crypto misuse, SSRF) and audits dependencies when a lockfile moved, using the repo's own package manager. Runs as…