Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to xetenet/xete-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/xetenet/xete-mcp/main/.claude/skills/doubt-driven-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/xetenet/xete-mcpWrote 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/xetenet/xete-mcp/doubt-driven-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/xetenet/xete-mcp/doubt-driven-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xetenet/xete-mcp/doubt-driven-review/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/xetenet/xete-mcp/doubt-driven-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xetenet/xete-mcp/doubt-driven-review.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 | $0.00109 | $0.00904 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00055 | $0.00452 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00181 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00090 |
Grade A, and why
doubt-driven-review 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 10d 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 — 63 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Doubt-Driven Review
Confidence is not evidence. This skill forces an adversarial second pass on decisions where being wrong is expensive or irreversible.
When this is MANDATORY (enforced by pre-commit hook)
Any staged change touching:
programs/or any Rust smart contract source- Key generation, storage, signing, or policy logic (Black Knight)
- Encryption, key exchange, or nonce handling (x25519 / AES-256-GCM paths)
- Migration or deployment scripts for immutable contracts
The loop: CLAIM → EXTRACT → DOUBT → RECONCILE
1. CLAIM
State the decision or change as a falsifiable claim. Not "improved the settlement logic" but "the commitment hash cannot be replayed across tabs because X is included in the preimage."
2. EXTRACT
List every assumption the claim rests on. For each: is it verified, inherited, or assumed? Assumptions inherited from docs or prior conversation are UNVERIFIED until checked against source.
3. DOUBT (fresh context)
Review the claim as if you had no investment in it being true. Concretely:
- Benchmarks first: check
benchmarks/BM-*.mdfor cases whosePathsoverlap this diff. Each matching benchmark's doubt prompt MUST be answered explicitly in the DDR — these are real bugs this codebase has already shipped once. Repeating a benchmarked bug because its prompt was skipped is the system's cardinal failure. - In Claude Code: spawn a subagent (or open a fresh session) with ONLY the diff, the claim, and the assumption list. No conversation history. Instruct it: "Your job is to break this. Find the input, ordering, or state that falsifies the claim."
- Cross-model escalation: for contract logic, run the same doubt prompt through the secondary model (owl-alpha) AND Claude. Disagreement between models is a finding, not noise.
- The reviewer must produce at least one concrete attack attempt per assumption, even if it fails. "Looks good" is not a review.
4. RECONCILE
For each doubt raised: refute it with evidence (test, code reference, invariant), or fix the code, or explicitly accept the risk in writing. No silent dismissals.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 63 lines · 109 tokens per session scan A 47aa8d209edd
doubt-driven-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository xetenet/xete-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 109 tokens to every session and 904 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
legacy-shield
Secure zero-knowledge document vault for AI agents. Persistence for your secrets.
trace-mcp-refactoring
Safe refactoring workflow using trace-mcp — assess risk, find candidates, check impact, and rename symbols across all files without missing import sites or cross-file references.
m1nd-first
Use when investigating a repository, searching for implementation, reviewing changes, working from specs/docs, or preparing a risky code change in an environment where m1nd is available. This doctrine makes m1nd the first investigative layer before grep, glob, or manual file reads, except when the task is pure…
ironmesh-audit
Tail the tamper-evident IronMesh audit log for security events. Use when investigating a TOFU mismatch, auth failure, peer dropping out, or a suspected attack.
ironmesh-peers
Drill into per-peer IronMesh metrics — retry reasons, session rekeys, offline-since, transport type. Use when ironmesh-status shows a problem on a specific peer and you need detail.
review-thread
Record review verdicts and run the StateNote review thread on an agent-operation instance — every ReviewRequest verdict is one atomic batch-direct-write that advances status and co-writes a reviewnote explaining why, and findings are corrected by appending notes rather than editing them.