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 previewgit 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/preview)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/thkt/dotclaude/preview"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/thkt/dotclaude/preview/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/preview"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/thkt/dotclaude/preview.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 6 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
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 | $0.00041 | $0.00753 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00301 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00151 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
preview 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.
What it actually says
/preview - Plan 整合性の確認
入力
$ARGUMENTS は PR の URL、番号、または空。空なら現在ブランチから検出する。
実行
gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --json number,title,body,files,urlで PR を識別する。失敗したら$ARGUMENTSなしで再実行する- PR が無い、または作業ツリーが dirty なら中止する。判定は
git status --porcelain - 意図のソースを特定する (§ 意図のソース)
gh pr diff $PRを読み、§ チェックの各項目を判定する- § 出力形式で結果を出す
意図のソース
上から順に探し、最初に見つかったものを使う。
- 起点の issue の
## Plan節。ブランチ名や commit message の issue 参照からgh issue view <N>で取る .claude/workspace/planning/の*.plan.md。ブランチ名か PR タイトルに一致するもの- PR 説明と commit message。ここまで落ちたときは U-NNN と T-NNN の行を飛ばし、Scope creep と Impl-wrong だけを見る
チェック
各フラグには根拠となる plan の行を引用する。引用の無い missing と wrong は根拠が無いので落とす。
| チェック | ソース | 条件 | フラグ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unit coverage | ## Plan 節の U-NNN unit |
plan あり | missing |
| Test coverage | ## Plan 節の T-NNN 受け入れテスト |
plan あり | missing |
| Scope creep | diff vs 意図のソース | 常時 | out-of-scope |
| Impl-wrong | diff の振る舞い vs unit goal / T-NNN | 常時 | wrong |
出力形式
会話に出す。ファイルには保存せず、PR にも投稿しない。
Plan Alignment: [CLEAN | MISSING <N> | OUT-OF-SCOPE <N> | WRONG <N> | MIXED]
Intent source: <issue #N Plan section | *.plan.md path | PR description | commit messages>
Missing (U): U-NNN - <description> (plan: "<quoted line>")
Missing (T): T-NNN - <description> (plan: "<quoted line>")
Out-of-scope: <file or area> - not traceable to stated intent
Wrong: <U-NNN/T-NNN> - implemented but <gap> (plan: "<quoted line>")
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 First seen · 55 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A a8c99ca1ce85
preview is a skill published in the GitHub repository thkt/dotclaude (12 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 753 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…