Install
$ agentstack add skill-0xdarkmatter-claude-mods-atomise ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Atomise - Atom of Thoughts Reasoning
Decompose complex problems into minimal, verifiable "atoms" of thought. Unlike chain-of-thought (linear, error-accumulating), AoT treats each step as independently verifiable and backtracks when confidence drops.
Use for: Security analysis, architectural decisions, complex debugging, multi-step proofs. Don't use for: Simple questions, trivial calculations, information lookup.
/atomise "" [--light | --deep] [--math | --code | --security | --design]
The Core Loop
1. DECOMPOSE -> Break into atomic subquestions (1-2 sentences each)
2. SOLVE -> Answer leaf nodes first, propagate up
3. VERIFY -> Test each hypothesis (counterexample, consistency, domain check)
4. CONTRACT -> Summarize verified state in 2 sentences (drop history)
5. EVALUATE -> Confident enough? Done. Too uncertain? Backtrack and try another path.
Repeat until confident or all paths exhausted.
Atoms
Each atom is a minimal unit:
{id, type, content, depends_on[], confidence, verified}
| Type | Purpose | Starting Confidence | |------|---------|---------------------| | premise | Given facts | 1.0 | | reasoning | Logical inference | Inherited from parents | | hypothesis | Claim to test | Max 0.7 until verified | | verification | Test result | Based on test outcome | | conclusion | Final answer | Propagated from chain |
Confidence propagates: A child can't be more confident than its least-confident parent.
Confidence (Honest Caveat)
These numbers are heuristic, not calibrated probabilities. They're useful for tracking relative certainty, not for actual risk assessment.
| Threshold | Meaning | |-----------|---------| | > 0.85 | Confident enough to conclude | | 0.6 - 0.85 | Needs more verification | | ** maintain or slight boost
- Partial -> reduce ~15%
- Refuted -> major reduction, likely backtrack
Modes
Depth:
--light- Fast: max 3 levels, 0.70 confidence threshold- (default) - Standard: max 5 levels, 0.85 threshold
--deep- Exhaustive: max 7 levels, 0.90 threshold
Domain (adjusts verification style):
--math- Arithmetic checks, proof validation, boundary tests--code- Type checking, invariant verification, test generation--security- Threat modeling, attack surface, adversarial thinking--design- Tradeoff analysis, constraint satisfaction, feasibility
Output
ANSWER: {result}
CONFIDENCE: {0.0-1.0} - {why}
KEY CHAIN: P1 -> R1 -> H1 -> V1 -> C1
ATOMS:
| id | type | content | conf | verified |
|----|------|---------|------|----------|
| P1 | premise | Given: ... | 1.0 | Y |
| R1 | reasoning | Therefore: ... | 0.95 | Y |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
RISKS: {what could change this}
Add --verbose for full trace, --quiet for just the answer.
Execution Guide
Phase 0: Setup
- Restate the problem in one sentence
- Extract premises as atoms (given facts = 1.0, assumptions = 0.6)
- Sketch approaches: Direct solve? Decompose? Reframe? Pick best.
Phase 1+: Iterate
- Atomicity gate: Can you answer from verified atoms? Yes -> solve. No -> decompose.
- Decompose: Build dependency tree of atomic subquestions
- Solve + Verify: Leaves first, propagate up. Every hypothesis needs verification.
- Contract: Summarize in Terminate
- Uncertain but viable? -> Continue
- Low confidence? -> Backtrack, try alternative
Backtracking
When a path yields confidence Just answer it BAD: /atomise "Rewrite this function" -> That's implementation, not reasoning BAD: Forcing conclusion despite low confidence -> Let it backtrack GOOD: /atomise for genuine uncertainty requiring structured decomposition
---
## Remember
1. **Atomic = minimal.** 1-2 sentences per atom.
2. **Verify everything.** Hypotheses need tests.
3. **Contract aggressively.** Keep only what's needed for next step.
4. **Backtrack freely.** Low confidence means try another path.
5. **Confidence is heuristic.** Useful for structure, not actual probabilities.
## Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- **Author:** [0xDarkMatter](https://github.com/0xDarkMatter)
- **Source:** [0xDarkMatter/claude-mods](https://github.com/0xDarkMatter/claude-mods)
- **License:** MIT
- **Homepage:** https://github.com/0xDarkMatter/claude-mods#readme
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.