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 contradicto-reveliogit 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/contradicto-revelio)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/totes-mickgoats/opus-pocus/contradicto-revelio"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/totes-mickgoats/opus-pocus/contradicto-revelio/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/contradicto-revelio"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/totes-mickgoats/opus-pocus/contradicto-revelio.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 | $0.00135 | $0.01101 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00068 | $0.00550 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00220 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00110 |
Grade A, and why
contradicto-revelio 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 12d 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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
🛡 Contradicto Revelio
"Two rules enter. One rule leaves."
Instruction layers accrete. A style plugin demands compression; a workflow demands outputs be pasted verbatim. A global file says "always ask first"; a project file says "never ask, decide". Each rule was right when written. Together they make every compliant action a violation — and a model that obeys widely pays that cost on every turn.
What to scan
All instruction sources as the model sees them together: user-global memory files, the
project's own memory files (root and nested, CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md), rule files, output
styles, active plugins' skills, hook message text, and agent definitions. Contradictions live
between sources more often than within one.
Anti-patterns to find
- Direct contradiction. Rule A: "compress all output." Rule B: "paste command outputs verbatim — a summary reads as missing." Obeying either violates the other.
- Precedence vacuum. A general rule and a specific rule collide ("never edit generated files" vs "this generated folder is hand-tuned; edits survive") with nothing saying which wins where.
- Cross-source drift. The same rule stated in two files at different strictness ("prefer feature branches" vs "direct commits to main are blocked") — the model can't tell which is current.
- Obligation vs prohibition. One rule requires an action ("update the doc in the same commit") that another forbids in context ("another team owns these docs — never edit them"). The obligation becomes undischargeable (→ also Finite Recursum class 4).
- Stale half of a superseded pair. A decision inverted ("X is now adopted") while the old prohibition ("never use X") survives elsewhere. The model finds both; recency isn't visible in a file.
- Style-vs-substance collisions. An output style (brevity, persona, formatting) that conflicts with content contracts (verbatim verdicts, exact error strings, structured reports).
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 74 lines · 135 tokens per session scan A 7773b43e2d32
contradicto-revelio is a skill published in the GitHub repository Totes-MickGOATs/opus-pocus (10 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 135 tokens to every session and 1,101 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"…
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.…
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.
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.
feature-dev
Guide a feature implementation through a structured seven-phase workflow with deep codebase understanding, clarifying questions, parallel architecture design, and quality review. Use this skill when the user asks to build a new feature, add functionality, or wants a methodical approach to implementation rather than…
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.