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 unknowbug/anchorlaw --skill anchor.degradegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/unknowbug/anchorlawWrote 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/unknowbug/anchorlaw/anchor.degrade)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/unknowbug/anchorlaw/anchor.degrade"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/unknowbug/anchorlaw/anchor.degrade/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/unknowbug/anchorlaw/anchor.degrade"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/unknowbug/anchorlaw/anchor.degrade.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 | $0.00053 | $0.00563 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00282 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00113 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
anchor.degrade 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 5d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- anchor-degrade — 86% identical, 3 lines differ
What it actually says
anchor.degrade — 降级验证
Protocol: spec/protocol-v0.20.md §9 (Degraded Verification) Layer: L2 (Anchors) — 与 anchor.test 同域（CLI 入口同为 anchorlaw test） Execution: subprocess
触发场景
生成代码依赖二进制内部符号，无法独立编译运行；anchorlaw test 无法执行时。
操作步骤
- 分类模式（§9.1）：
- Full — 自包含 + anchorlaw 已装 →
anchorlaw test可跑 - Partial — 有未解析外部依赖 → test 不能跑，@pt 仍须带 source（假设记录，验证推迟）
- Degraded — anchorlaw 未装 → 人工对照 trace 审查
- Full — 自包含 + anchorlaw 已装 →
- 判定自包含性（§9.2）：无外部函数调用 / 无全局引用 / 无外部自定义类型 → Full；否则查依赖，全部可解析才 Full。
- 登记：Partial/Degraded 的函数写入
uncompilable_functions.yaml（函数名、源位置、未解析依赖清单、建议路径——§9.3 字段）。 - retry cap（§9.4，v0.13 证据饱和）：实现→验证循环受证据饱和约束——连续 3 轮假设验证无新数据层证据（trace/probe）必须回到数据层采集（动态 trace），禁止无新数据反复改假设（过程熵增）；产生新证据的轮次重置计数不消耗 cap（不切断持续获证的探索）；工程修复不计数。
- 诚实声明（§9.5）：Partial/Degraded 下所有导出/报告前缀标注降级模式，置信度不自动提升。
输出
模式分类结论 / uncompilable_functions.yaml 记录 / 降级声明前缀。
约束
- 降级不是防御性逃避——是诚实标注当前验证天花板。
- 无新数据层证据不迭代假设。
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.
- 5d ago Changed d7d96e7996b3
- 9d ago First seen · 35 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 90815eb1d378
anchor.degrade is a skill published in the GitHub repository unknowbug/anchorlaw (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 563 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
solid-principles
SOLID principles checklist with Java examples. Use when a class has too many responsibilities, an abstraction leaks, or a dependency points the wrong way, and when the user asks about Single Responsibility, Open/Closed, Liskov, Interface Segregation or Dependency Inversion. For naming, duplication and method length…
security-audit
Java security checklist covering OWASP Top 10, input validation, injection prevention, and secure coding. Works with Spring, Quarkus, Jakarta EE, and plain Java. Use when reviewing code security, before releases, or when user asks about vulnerabilities.
issue-triage
Triage and categorize GitHub issues with priority labels. Use when user says "triage issues", "check issues", "review open issues", or during regular maintenance of GitHub issue backlog.
ring:migrating-to-lib-observability
Migrating a Lerian Go app off lib-commons observability imports (deprecated shims or removed APIs) to lib-observability via a fixed mapping table, then bumps go.mod and validates the build; ring:backend-go applies the edits. Covers log/zap/runtime/assert, opentelemetry/tracing, HTTP middleware, context helpers, and…
ring:searching-code
Forensic code search and analysis with optional Chain of Draft (CoD) ultra-concise mode. Five-phase methodology (clarification, planning, execution, analysis, synthesis) with severity assessment. Use for targeted investigation of specific patterns, bugs, or vulnerabilities. Skip for broad architecture mapping (use…
ring:exploring-codebases
Exploring a codebase across phases: scopes the target, detects architecture, components, and layers, deep-dives each discovered perspective, then synthesizes findings into actionable guidance with file:line evidence. Use to understand how a feature or system works before planning changes, or to orient on an unfamiliar…