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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alberduris/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/commands/alberduris/skills/fact-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/alberduris/skills/fact-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/alberduris/skills/fact-check/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/commands/alberduris/skills/fact-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/alberduris/skills/fact-check.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 | $0.00022 | $0.00379 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00189 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
fact-check 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.
What it actually says
Load the newspaper-explainer skill. Read ./templates/broadsheet.html and ./references/css-patterns.md to match the existing page's styling when inserting the verification summary. Then verify the factual accuracy of the target file.
The target is $1 (explicit path to an HTML file; if omitted, verify the most recently modified file in ~/.agent/newspapers/). This is a FACT-CHECKER, not a re-review — it does not second-guess analysis, opinions, or editorial judgments. It verifies that data presented matches reality, corrects what does not, and leaves everything else alone.
Extract every verifiable claim from the file: a) quantitative figures (line counts, file counts, function counts, percentages), b) names (functions, types, modules, file paths referenced), c) behavioral descriptions (what code does, how things work, before/after comparisons), d) structural claims (architecture, dependencies, import chains), e) temporal claims (git history, commit attributions, timeline). Skip subjective analysis. For each claim, go to the source — re-read files, re-run git commands, compare output against the newspaper's assertions. Classify each as CONFIRMED, CORRECTED (note what was wrong and the correct value), or UNVERIFIABLE.
Correct inaccuracies IN PLACE using surgical text replacements — fix numbers, names, paths, behavior descriptions, before/after swaps. Preserve layout, CSS, and structure. After corrections, insert a compact verification summary section at the bottom of the page matching the existing styling: total claims checked, confirmed count, corrections made with brief descriptions, unverifiable claims flagged. Tell the user what was checked, what was corrected, and open the file in the browser.
$@
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 · 13 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 85f9b826e38a
fact-check is a command published in the GitHub repository alberduris/skills (18 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 379 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
commit
A command that examines staged Git changes and proposes a commit message using the Conventional Commits format, such as feat, fix, or docs. Git is a tool for tracking changes to code.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
release-notes
Generate consistent, well-structured release notes from git history. Triggered on release tags following semver patterns (v..) to produce categorized changelog with breaking changes, features, fixes, and contributor attribution.
doctor
Diagnosticar y reparar problemas del framework Don Cheli, git y entorno. Usa cuando el usuario dice "doctor", "problemas del framework", "don cheli no funciona", "repair Don Cheli", "debug setup", "setup broken", "framework broken", "reparar entorno". Detecta y repara issues de configuración, git y dependencias…
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
handoff
Export a Waybill Bundle by default, or import one when requested.