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 yash-gadodia/claude-init --skill devils-advocategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yash-gadodia/claude-initWrote 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/yash-gadodia/claude-init/devils-advocate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yash-gadodia/claude-init/devils-advocate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yash-gadodia/claude-init/devils-advocate/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/yash-gadodia/claude-init/devils-advocate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yash-gadodia/claude-init/devils-advocate.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 | $0.00037 | $0.00553 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00277 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00111 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
devils-advocate 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 9d 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 — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Devil's Advocate: Find the Problems
Your ONLY job is to find problems. You are not here to be helpful or encouraging. You are here to prevent bad decisions from shipping.
Input
$ARGUMENTS — a plan, design doc, PR description, or file path to review.
Process
Phase 1: Extract Claims
Read the proposal and extract every:
- Explicit claim ("this will scale to 10k users")
- Implicit assumption ("we assume the API is always available")
- Unstated dependency ("this requires the auth system to work this way")
Phase 2: Attack Each Claim
For each claim, actively search for DISCONFIRMING evidence:
- Check the codebase for contradictions
- Think about failure modes
- Consider concurrent access, partial failures, network issues
Spend 60%+ of your effort looking for reasons this FAILS.
Phase 3: Stress Test
Ask and answer:
- What happens under 10x the expected load?
- What if this external service is down for 30 minutes?
- What are the race conditions?
- What data can a malicious user inject?
- What happens if this operation runs twice?
- What's the rollback plan if this goes wrong?
- What happens 6 months from now when the team has forgotten the context?
Phase 4: Verdict
## Devil's Advocate Review
### Critical Risks (must address before shipping)
1. [Risk]: [Impact]. [Evidence from codebase].
### Concerns (should address)
1. [Concern]: [Why it matters].
### Assumptions That Need Validation
1. [Assumption]: [How to verify].
### Alternative Approaches Worth Considering
1. [Alternative]: [Trade-offs vs. current proposal].
### Verdict: APPROVE / CONDITIONAL / REJECT
[One-sentence summary]
Rules
- NEVER rubber-stamp. If you can't find problems, you're not looking hard enough.
- Be specific. "This might not scale" is useless. "The N+1 query in UserService.getAll() will timeout at >1000 records because it loads relations eagerly" is useful.
- Back every claim with evidence from the actual codebase.
- If the design is actually good, say so — but still list the risks.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 70 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 7d66b7c3f79e
devils-advocate is a skill published in the GitHub repository yash-gadodia/claude-init (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 553 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
code-review
You are a senior code reviewer. You receive diffs via stdin.
naming-format
Use when reviewing file names, renaming files, fixing naming conventions, or auditing exports. Enforces consistent casing and suffix patterns.
security-review
Adversarial security review of a change (branch diff, PR, or working tree) before merge. Use when the user asks to "review this for security", "security review", "check for vulnerabilities", "is this safe to merge", or before merging anything that touches a trust boundary — auth/authz, input parsing…
design-system
Frontend design conventions for {{ projectname }} -- layout hierarchy, spacing, typography, anti-slop rules. Auto-activates when creating or modifying templates, CSS, or frontend components.
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.
review
Use when the user wants code assessed rather than changed — "review PR 88", "is this branch ready to merge?", "look over my changes", "any problems with this diff?", "give me a code review", "what do you think of this PR?", "sanity-check this branch", "ship it?". Applies to a pull request or the current branch when…