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 agentmods add skills/tupe12334/instinct/inversionnpx skills add tupe12334/instinct --skill inversiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tupe12334/instinctWrote 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/tupe12334/instinct/inversion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tupe12334/instinct/inversion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tupe12334/instinct/inversion.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00027 | $0.02275 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.01137 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00455 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00228 |
Grade A, and why
inversion 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 3d 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 — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Inversion
Overview
Inversion is a mental model popularized by Charlie Munger and rooted in the mathematics of Jakob Jacobi: instead of asking "how do I achieve X?" ask "what would guarantee I never achieve X?" then systematically avoid those things. Removing obstacles is often faster than adding effort — the answer to a hard forward problem is frequently obvious once you look at it from the other end.
FORWARD THINKING INVERTED THINKING
───────────────── ──────────────────────────────────
"How do we build "How would we guarantee users
a loyal user base?" ← never come back?"
│
- Ignore support tickets
- Ship confusing UX
- Break things without notice
│
INVERT the list:
→ Respond fast, fix UX, communicate changes
Inversion does not replace forward planning — it stress-tests it and fills in blind spots that optimism and familiarity hide.
Core Concepts
The Inversion Flip
Every goal statement has a mirror. "Maximize customer trust" inverts to "destroy customer trust." The mirrored question is psychologically easier to answer because humans are wired to spot threats and failures more readily than they are to generate novel paths to success.
Obstacle Removal vs. Goal Pursuit
Two routes to any outcome:
- Add things that produce it (the standard approach).
- Remove things that prevent it (inversion's contribution).
Munger's formulation: "All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I'll never go there."
Completeness Check
Inversion is a completeness tool. Apply it after forward brainstorming to catch what you missed — the goal is not to replace positive plans but to find the failures your forward plan silently assumes away.
┌───────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ FORWARD QUESTION │ INVERTED MIRROR │
├───────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ How do we grow │ How would we reliably kill revenue? │
│ revenue? │ │
├───────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ How do we ship │ How would we guarantee this launch fails? │
│ this on time? │ │
├───────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ How do we build │ What would make top performers leave │
│ a great team? │ within six months? │
├───────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ How do we make │ What would make this decision obviously │
│ the right call? │ the wrong one in hindsight? │
└───────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────┘
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 158 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 578f80b98eb1
inversion is a skill published in the GitHub repository tupe12334/instinct (1 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 2,275 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
thinking-model-router
When unsure which thinking skill fits, map domain and problem type, then return NONE or one primary skill by default (at most three complementary).
thinking-red-team
For authorized security review of code, auth, or APIs you control, model the attacker, map the attack surface, and report only findings with a reproducible exploit path and verified mitigation.
thinking-scientific-method
When a symptom has several plausible causes, rank falsifiable hypotheses and run the cheapest discriminating observation first; prefer least-assumptive survivors only after evidence fit.
thinking-systems
When behavior is emergent across components—fixes elsewhere break, loops/delays dominate—map boundary, stocks/flows, feedback, archetypes, then rank leverage.
thinking-circle-of-competence
Use when a specific claim may lack grounding. Check evidence boundary, size wrongness cost, then answer, fetch, or abstain — never confabulate.
thinking-five-whys-plus
When a fault is localized and the proximate cause is known but the systemic root is not, chain evidence-linked whys with a counterfactual stop and a countermeasure.