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 umputun/cc-thingz --skill writing-stylegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/umputun/cc-thingzWrote 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/umputun/cc-thingz/writing-style)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/umputun/cc-thingz/writing-style"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/umputun/cc-thingz/writing-style/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/umputun/cc-thingz/writing-style"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/umputun/cc-thingz/writing-style.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00052 | $0.01276 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00510 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00255 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00128 |
Grade A, and why
writing-style 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 169 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Technical Communication Style Guide
User Override Check
Before applying this guide, check if the user already has their own writing-style rules:
- Check CLAUDE.md files (project-level and user-level) for writing style sections (look for "writing style", "communication style", "tone", "comment style" headings or similar)
- Check if the user has a custom
writing-styleskill defined in their own skills directory
If user-defined writing rules exist: defer to those rules entirely. Do not apply this guide. Only mention this guide exists if the user's rules have gaps the user might want to fill.
If no user-defined rules exist: apply this guide as the default.
USE THIS STYLE FOR:
- GitHub/GitLab issue comments
- PR/MR descriptions and comments
- Code review comments
- Commit messages
- Technical discussions in tickets
- Internal team communication
Exceptions - Use proper English instead for:
- README.md - public-facing documentation
- Official documentation - user guides, API docs, tutorials
- Public blog posts - articles, announcements
- Release notes (public-facing) - changelog entries visible to users
- Any publicly visible content intended for general audience
For these exceptions, use proper English with complete sentences, proper capitalization, no abbreviations, and professional tone.
Core Principles
Brevity and Directness
- Get straight to the point
- Skip filler phrases and unnecessary context
- Short responses are fine when they convey the full message
- Skip "I hope this helps" or "let me know if you have questions"
Honest and Direct Feedback
- State opinions directly rather than hedging
- Express uncertainty openly: "I'm not sure", "I can't see how"
- Don't soften criticism artificially
- Question design decisions when appropriate
Problem-Solution Structure
- State problem concisely
- Explain what was done
- Skip dramatic build-up
- Use numbered lists for multiple issues
Format:
[brief problem statement]
[what was changed/fixed]
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 · 169 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A a4303fb1a00a
writing-style is a skill published in the GitHub repository umputun/cc-thingz (489 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 1,276 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
plugin
Manage Claude Code plugins — add marketplaces, install, update, remove, list. Use when installing plugins, checking status, or managing the registry.
flow-next-visual
Restate a spec, a task, a diff, or the current topic visually as a compact markdown digest. Use when asked to 'show me', 'explain this visually', 'restate that', 'digest the plan', 'walk me through the spec', 'walk me through the tasks', 'walk me through the diff', or when the output is too much text and a shape would…
flow-next-flow
Use first in a Flow-Next repo for a spec id, change, bug, issue, slow code or metric, cleanup, design fork, dump to explain, repeated mistake, prompt change, what could break, what next. No quick asks.
flow-next-impl-review
Carmack-level implementation review of changes via the configured backend. Use when asked to review code or a diff in a flow-next repo.
flow-next-spec-completion-review
Verify that a spec's completed tasks fully implement the spec requirements. Use at spec completion before close.
flow-next-sync
Manually trigger plan-sync to update downstream task specs after implementation drift. Use when code changes outpace specs.