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 velinussage/brand-gen --skill brand-gen-experiment-modelinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/velinussage/brand-genWrote 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/velinussage/brand-gen/brand-gen-experiment-modeling)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/velinussage/brand-gen/brand-gen-experiment-modeling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/velinussage/brand-gen/brand-gen-experiment-modeling/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/velinussage/brand-gen/brand-gen-experiment-modeling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/velinussage/brand-gen/brand-gen-experiment-modeling.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 | $0.00206 | $0.02177 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00103 | $0.01089 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00435 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00218 |
Grade A, and why
brand-gen-experiment-modeling 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 11d 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 — 121 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
For Sage brand work in Pi, use the paste-ready prompt at docs/prompts/pi-sage-brand-gen-full-pipeline.md. Keep this link instead of copying the full prompt into skill bodies.
Brand-Gen Experiment Modeling
Risk addressed: brand-gen computes 2-3 ranked aesthetic variants in build_aesthetic_direction_brief (brand_gen/aesthetic_curation.py:231) — and discards them. Only the _resolved_capsule (one variant) flows into the prompt. branch_id and parent_branch_id exist in pipeline_types.py:261 but are populated to workflow_id everywhere; nothing forks. Three parallel selection systems (aesthetic_archetypes rotation, aesthetic_curation capsule scoring, surface_strategy strategy scoring, plus a design_variance 1-10 dial) merge in plan_builder.py:506-528 with no shared "Variant" type.
This skill answers: does the system support trying N aesthetic directions and converging on one, today? If not, what's the smallest abstraction that would?
What this skill produces
{
"summary": {
"first_class_variant_type_exists": false,
"variants_materialized_per_run": 3,
"variants_used_per_run": 1,
"branch_id_populated_distinct_from_workflow": false,
"parallel_selection_systems": 4,
"shared_selection_signature": null
},
"variant_lifecycle": [
{ "stage": "create", "site": "aesthetic_curation.py:231 build_aesthetic_direction_brief", "shape": "{primary, alternates[2], difference_axes[], selection_rule}" },
{ "stage": "plan_attach", "site": "plan_builder.py:523", "shape": "embedded as plan['aesthetic_direction_brief'] dict" },
{ "stage": "prompt_consume", "site": "prompt_assembly.py:??", "shape": "prose render of primary only — alternates not referenced" },
{ "stage": "scratchpad_persist", "site": "generation_flow.py:assemble_generation_scratchpad", "shape": "?" },
{ "stage": "score_address", "site": "scoring/program.py BrandScorer", "shape": "no variant addressing — single brand_dna string" },
{ "stage": "iteration_memory_address", "site": "iteration_memory.py", "shape": "no variant addressing — flat per-version entries" }
],
"selection_systems": [
{ "name": "aesthetic_archetype", "module": "aesthetic_archetypes.py", "score_fn": "pick_rotating_archetype", "output_type": "dict", "merges_at": "plan_builder.py:506-528" },
{ "name": "aesthetic_capsule", "module": "aesthetic_curation.py", "score_fn": "_capsule_score", "output_type": "dict", "merges_at": "plan_builder.py:506-528" },
{ "name": "surface_strategy", "module": "surface_strategy.py", "score_fn": "_score_strategy", "output_type": "dict", "merges_at": "plan_builder.py:506-528" },
{ "name": "design_variance_dial", "module": "card_engine.py", "score_fn": "n/a (int 1-10 from caller)", "output_type": "int", "merges_at": "card_engine.py taste_design_directives" }
],
"branch_field_usage": [
{ "site": "pipeline_types.py:261 declaration", "populated_to": "n/a" },
{ "site": "pipeline_runner.py", "populated_to": "workflow_id (no actual branching)" }
],
"recommendation": {
"abstraction": "AestheticExperiment",
"fields": ["experiment_id", "parent_experiment_id", "variants: List[Variant]", "selected_variant_id", "selection_rationale", "scoring_dimension", "decision_state"],
"variant_fields": ["variant_id", "archetype", "capsule", "surface_strategy", "design_variance", "selection_score", "selection_reasons", "differentiating_axes"],
"seam": "between MaterialPlan (plan-build phase output) and GenerationScratchpad (execute phase input)",
"minimum_changes": ["promote variants[] from plan dict to typed list", "carry through generation_flow scratchpad payload", "extend BrandScorer.forward to accept variant context", "extend iteration_memory entries to reference variant_id"]
}
}
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 121 lines · 206 tokens per session scan A 6ba4a93d7f25
brand-gen-experiment-modeling is a skill published in the GitHub repository velinussage/brand-gen (0 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 206 tokens to every session and 2,177 once invoked, about $0.0010 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
html-ppt-zhangzara-block-frame
Rescuing a messy startup deck into a board-grade system — the diagnosis, the page grammar, and the rebuilt proof pages. Built as a decision-grade design craft deck for founders, exec presenter.
accesslint-scan
Audit a live page for accessibility issues, locate each WCAG violation precisely, and return a selector-grounded fix worklist without editing.
check
Reviews code diffs, PRs, issue queues, release readiness, commits, pushes, publishing, and project audits. Use when users ask in any language for code review, issue or PR triage, release gates, publishing follow-through, or project audits. Not for debugging root causes or prose review.
health
Runs a budget-aware agent-assisted engineering health audit for instruction/config drift, hooks/MCP, verifier surfaces, and AI maintainability. Use when users ask in any language to audit Claude, Codex, Pi, agent instructions, MCP or hooks, verifier coverage, or AI-maintainability drift. Not for debugging application…
hunt
Finds root cause before applying fixes for errors, crashes, regressions, failing tests, broken behavior, and screenshot-reported defects. Use when users report in any language errors, crashes, broken behavior, regressions, failing tests, screenshot evidence, or something that used to work and now fails. Not for code…
think
Turns rough ideas into approved, decision-complete plans with validated structure before coding. Use when users ask in any language for planning, architecture, design direction, feasibility, value judgment, or whether a feature is worth doing before implementation. Not for bug fixes or small edits.