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 Totes-MickGOATs/opus-pocus --skill clarificus-maximagit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Totes-MickGOATs/opus-pocusWrote 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/totes-mickgoats/opus-pocus/clarificus-maxima)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/totes-mickgoats/opus-pocus/clarificus-maxima"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/totes-mickgoats/opus-pocus/clarificus-maxima/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/totes-mickgoats/opus-pocus/clarificus-maxima"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/totes-mickgoats/opus-pocus/clarificus-maxima.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 | $0.00133 | $0.00948 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00067 | $0.00474 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00190 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
clarificus-maxima 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 11d 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 — 62 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
🛡 Clarificus Maxima
"A rule with no trigger is just vibes in a trenchcoat."
Older models under-read instructions, so authors compensated with broad rules. The 5-family weighs every rule in context on every turn — a rule with no trigger fires everywhere, taxing attention and diluting the rules that carry real constraints.
What to scan
Every memory file the repo carries (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, nested), every rule file, output style, skill body, and agent definition.
Anti-patterns to find
- No trigger. "Be careful with the database." When? Doing what? A rule that cannot answer "this applies when ___" applies always, which means it competes with everything.
- No scope. "Always write tests." For a typo fix? A doc edit? Unscoped absolutes force the model to either over-comply or learn to ignore the file.
- No falsifiable condition. "Keep code quality high", "prefer clean solutions", "be thorough". Nobody — model or human — can check compliance. Pure attention tax.
- Aspirational rules. Rules describing a hoped-for culture rather than a decision procedure ("we value simplicity"). These belong in a philosophy doc, not an instruction file.
- Hedged rules. "Generally avoid X unless it makes sense." The exception clause is the whole rule; the model must guess the actual boundary every time.
- Duplicate rules at different vagueness levels. A precise rule in one file and its vague cousin in another — the vague one wins in novel situations because it matches more contexts.
Fix prescriptions
| Finding class | Fix |
|---|---|
| No trigger | Rewrite as WHEN <observable situation> → <action>. If no trigger can be derived, the rule is a preference — delete or demote it |
| No scope | Add the boundary explicitly, including the negative ("this does not license…") when over-application is the observed failure |
| Not falsifiable | Replace with the concrete check that would verify it, or delete. "Include error handling when the change's stated purpose fails without it" beats "handle errors properly" |
| Aspirational | Move to a non-instruction doc, or convert into its one operative consequence |
| Hedged | Name the exception's actual criterion. If the criterion can't be named, the rule isn't one |
| Duplicates | Keep the precise version, delete the vague one, leave a pointer if files differ |
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 62 lines · 133 tokens per session scan A 9e57aa0c266f
clarificus-maxima is a skill published in the GitHub repository Totes-MickGOATs/opus-pocus (10 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 133 tokens to every session and 948 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
codeql
Run CodeQL database creation and security queries, add data-extension models, or process CodeQL SARIF. Use when CodeQL is explicitly requested; use security-review for a broader manual security review.
security-review
Perform a focused security review of pending git changes to identify high-confidence security vulnerabilities with real exploitation potential. Use this skill when the user asks for a security review, security audit, vulnerability scan, or wants to check pending changes on a branch for security issues before merging.…
huggingface-llm-trainer
Train or fine-tune language models with TRL or Unsloth on Hugging Face Jobs, including SFT, DPO, GRPO, reward models, and GGUF conversion. Use for cloud LLM training; use huggingface-vision-trainer for vision tasks.
huggingface-vision-trainer
Train object-detection, image-classification, or SAM segmentation models on Hugging Face Jobs. Use for vision fine-tuning and evaluation; use huggingface-llm-trainer for language models.
code-quality
Agents should invoke this skill for code reviews, linting/formatting setup, maintainability checks, complexity concerns, warning cleanup, coding standards, or quality gates in Rust, TypeScript, Python, shell, and mixed repos.