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 TserenTserenov/FMT-exocortex-template --skill artifactorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TserenTserenov/FMT-exocortex-templateWrote 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/tserentserenov/fmt-exocortex-template/artifactor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tserentserenov/fmt-exocortex-template/artifactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tserentserenov/fmt-exocortex-template/artifactor/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/tserentserenov/fmt-exocortex-template/artifactor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tserentserenov/fmt-exocortex-template/artifactor.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 analysis-evasion · line 1 Suspicious Unicode normalization or mixed-script contentFix: Review the flagged content for security risks. Ensure no credentials, secrets, or sensitive data are exposed.
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 | $0.00045 | $0.01424 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00712 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00285 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00142 |
Grade A, and why
artifactor 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 6d 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 — 136 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/artifactor — Артефактор-Постановщик
Роль: DP.ROLE.058 Артефактор-Постановщик
Триггер: запрос без routing-tag (Маршрутизатор → Артефактор) или/artifactor "текст"
Service Clause: DP.SC.160
When to use
Classifies raw pilot request → structured JSON with routing. The later WP Gate must also resolve how the work relates to a hypothesis; Artifactor does not invent that relation from keywords. Does NOT create WP or call executor.
Обещание (контракт)
Вход: сырой текст запроса пилота (любой длины, без routing-tag)
Выход: JSON 7 полей → stdout:
{
"task_type": "string",
"class": "trivial | closed-loop | open-loop | problem-framing",
"artifact": "string (одна строка на русском — существительное-результат)",
"budget_estimate": "~Xh | ?",
"confidence": "high | low",
"routing_tag": "string",
"resolution_path": "keyword | llm"
}
Инвариант:
- НЕ создаёт РП, НЕ вызывает исполнителя, НЕ задаёт уточняющих вопросов
confidence=highтолько при keyword-пути;confidence=lowпри LLM-пути- При запросе <5 слов: вернуть
{"error": "INSUFFICIENT_INPUT"}, стоп budget_estimate: "?"только приproblem-framingили полной неопределённости- В handoff к WP Gate передать
hypothesis_relation: "unclassified". До выбораtests | enables | responds | researches | operationalРП остаётся pending, а не запускается в работу.
Стратегическое основание РП
Артефактор не вправе приписать РП гипотезу без решения пилота. Он обязан передать в WP Gate вопрос о типе связи:
tests H-NNN— РП проверяет одну ставку;enables H-NNN— делает её проверку измеримой или возможной;responds H-NNN— следует из вердикта;researches— ищет основание для новой гипотезы;operational— поддерживает норму, устраняет инцидент или исполняет обязанность.
Для первых трёх нужен один H-NNN. Для двух последних номер гипотезы не
подставляется. Связь unclassified видна в карточке РП и блокирует её запуск,
но не создание: это сохраняет обратимость и не ломает старые автоматизации.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · +1 lines 33db1a1e5a80
- 11d ago First seen · 135 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 4b298838d8cf
artifactor is a skill published in the GitHub repository TserenTserenov/FMT-exocortex-template (51 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 1,424 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
team-management-debugging
Systematic debugging — a four-phase root-cause methodology, boundary instrumentation for multi-component systems, the 3-fix escalation rule, and a verification gate to run before claiming anything is fixed. Use on any test failure, production bug, build failure, performance regression, or integration glitch, and…
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…
team-management-tdd-discipline
Test-driven development discipline — when TDD applies, when forcing it is wrong, and the RED-GREEN-REFACTOR loop with an explicit "watch it fail" step. Use when writing or reviewing tests, fixing a bug, changing behaviour, or deciding whether a change needs a test at all. Triggers on bug fixes, new validation or…
data-profiling
Use BEFORE dispatching any subagent that needs to understand the dataset. Generates a high-density, PII-free data profile in Markdown so subagents receive structured context instead of raw data.
leakage-guard
Use whenever building features for time-series or any temporal dataset. Enforces strict temporal integrity: no future data in features, no post-event information, correct CV strategy.
verification-before-delivery
Use when any analysis, model, or report is claimed to be complete. Runs mandatory artifact integrity, statistical evidence, and reproducibility checks before any delivery.