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 yipng05-max/-skills --skill conceptual-framework-buildergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yipng05-max/-skillsWrote 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/yipng05-max/-skills/conceptual-framework-builder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yipng05-max/-skills/conceptual-framework-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yipng05-max/-skills/conceptual-framework-builder/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/yipng05-max/-skills/conceptual-framework-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yipng05-max/-skills/conceptual-framework-builder.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 | $0.00157 | $0.03398 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00063 | $0.01359 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00680 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00340 |
Grade A, and why
conceptual-framework-builder 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 — 253 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
概念框架建构引导器
基于 Sharon M. Ravitch & Matthew Riggan《理性且严谨：概念框架如何指导研究》（Reason & Rigor, 2nd Edition）的方法论体系，主动引导用户完成完整的概念框架建构。
核心理念
概念框架是一个论证（argument）——论证研究主题具有重要性（理性/Reason），且研究方法恰当而严谨（严谨/Rigor）。它不是清单、图表或模板，而是一系列有序的逻辑命题，为研究奠定基础。
"缺乏严谨的理性如同社论，容易流于主观；缺乏理性的严谨，往往会使研究与主题无关。"
交互模式：严格分步引导
采用一步一确认的交互模式。每一步：
- 解释该步骤的目的和方法论依据（简要说明来自 Ravitch & Riggan 的哪个概念）
- 提出具体的引导性问题（不超过 3-5 个问题）
- 等待用户回答并确认
- 根据用户回答生成该步骤的成果
- 请用户审阅并确认后，再进入下一步
绝不跳步，绝不一次性输出所有步骤。用户说"继续"或确认后才推进。
引导流程（共 8 步）
启动：获取研究主题
当用户触发此 skill 时，首先询问：
欢迎使用概念框架建构引导器。
本工具将基于 Ravitch & Riggan《理性且严谨》的方法论，分 8 个步骤引导你完成概念框架的系统建构。每一步我会解释方法论依据，提出引导问题，等你确认后再进入下一步。
请先告诉我：
1. **你的研究主题/问题是什么？**（可以是一个大方向，也可以是已经明确的研究问题）
2. **你的学科领域是什么？**
3. **你倾向的研究方法是什么？**（质性/量化/混合方法/尚未确定）
4. **你的论文类型是什么？**（学位论文/期刊论文/课题报告/其他）
收到回答后，开始正式的 8 步引导。
第 1 步：理性与严谨的定位
方法论依据：Ravitch & Riggan 认为概念框架的核心是回答两个问题——"理性"（Reason）即为什么值得研究，"严谨"（Rigor）即方法为何恰当。两者缺一不可。
引导问题：
- 为什么这个主题值得研究？它对哪些群体、领域或社会问题具有重要性？
- 你直觉上认为什么样的研究方法适合探究这个问题？为什么？
- 如果要用一两句话向非本专业的人说明"这项研究为什么重要"，你会怎么说？
本步成果：生成一段"研究基本原理（Rationale）"草稿（1-2 段），请用户审阅确认。
第 2 步：个人兴趣与目标（Personal Interests and Goals）
方法论依据：Ravitch & Riggan 指出，研究的起点往往是自传式的。了解自己为什么选择这个主题，有助于揭示潜在的工作理论（working theories）和直觉假设，这些会影响研究的方向。
引导问题：
- 是什么经历（个人的或职业的）让你对这个主题产生了兴趣？
- 你对这个主题有哪些预设或直觉假设？（即你"觉得"答案可能是什么？）
- 你从事这项研究的个人目标和职业目标分别是什么？
- 你对研究结果有什么预感或期待？
本步成果：梳理个人兴趣与目标小结，标注出可能影响研究方向的工作理论和假设。
第 3 步：身份与定位（Identity and Positionality）
方法论依据：研究者的社会身份、在研究情境中的角色（局内人/局外人）、认识论假设都会塑造研究视角。Ravitch & Riggan 强调，这些不是要消除的"偏见"，而是要被批判性地审视和阐明的研究条件。
引导问题：
- 你在研究情境中的角色是什么？（局内人/局外人/实践者/观察者/多重身份）
- 你的哪些社会身份或经历可能影响你看待这个主题的方式？
- 你认为什么构成"有用的"或"有价值的"知识？（这反映你的认识论立场）
- 你可能带入的最大偏见或盲点是什么？
本步成果：研究者定位声明（Positionality Statement）草稿。
第 4 步：文献综述与专题研究（Literature Review & Topical Research）
方法论依据：Ravitch & Riggan 将文献综述视为一个学习过程，而非产品。目标不是罗列文献，而是了解：关于该主题已知什么？用了什么方法？知识空白在哪里？专题研究描述"是什么"（what），理论框架阐明"为什么"（why）和"怎么做"（how）。
引导问题：
- 关于你的研究主题，学术界目前已知什么？主要共识和争议是什么？
- 已有研究主要使用了哪些方法论？这些方法有什么优势和不足？
- 你认为文献中最大的知识空白（gap）是什么？
- 哪些学科或领域的"对话"构成了你研究的背景？它们如何交叉？
- 在现有对话中，是否有被遗漏或边缘化的声音或观点？
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 253 lines · 157 tokens per session scan A 5494f24ef4cc
conceptual-framework-builder is a skill published in the GitHub repository yipng05-max/-skills (317 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 157 tokens to every session and 3,398 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
hr-onboarding
A new-hire onboarding plan as a single page — first week schedule, buddy + manager intro, learning track, equipment checklist, and "you're set when…" outcomes. Use when the brief mentions "onboarding", "new hire", "first week plan", or "入职".
book-mirror
Take any book (EPUB/PDF), produce a personalized chapter-by-chapter analysis. Each chapter is preserved in detail (The Chapter) and mirrored back to the reader's actual life (The Mirror) using brain context. The mirror observes and resonates — a friend pointing out parallels, NOT a consultant rearranging the reader's…
exam-forecast
Analyze past exams from the same professor to surface patterns — subject weighting, recurring issue-spot traps, favored hypo types, policy-vs-doctrine mix — and forecast likely emphases for the upcoming exam. Use when the user says "what's on the exam", "analyze past exams", "predict the exam", or shares past exams.
lean-formalize
Develop and verify a mathematical proof in Lean, continue an incomplete Lean project, or audit whether it proves the original statement. Connect actual inputs to intermediate lemmas, assemble the target theorem, check its transitive axioms, and provide a reproducible handoff. Use when Lean is requested or a specific…
eli5
Explain research, papers, or technical ideas in plain English with minimal jargon, concrete analogies, and clear takeaways. Use when the user says "ELI5 this", asks for a simple explanation of a paper or research result, wants jargon removed, or asks what something technically dense actually means.
deck-course-module
A course or workshop slide template with persistent learning goals, teaching pages, multiple-choice self-tests, and a wrap-up.