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 0xmariowu/builders-dont-cry --skill verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/0xmariowu/builders-dont-cryWrote 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/0xmariowu/builders-dont-cry/verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/0xmariowu/builders-dont-cry/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0xmariowu/builders-dont-cry/verify/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/0xmariowu/builders-dont-cry/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0xmariowu/builders-dont-cry/verify.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 | $0.00033 | $0.01606 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00803 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00321 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00161 |
Grade A, and why
verify 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 — 178 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/verify — Independent Review Gate
Step 0: Escape Hatch
If the user says 别走流程, 直接做, 简单点, or 不走地图, do not force /verify. Acknowledge once and do the smallest direct action.
Exception: do not bypass safety review for auth, secrets, PII, database, deploy, public upload, or destructive changes.
Step 0.5: Project Goal Check
If PROJECT_GOAL.md exists in the current project root or plan target root, read it before review. If the diff conflicts with current_phase, exit_criteria, or out_of_scope, return REQUEST_CHANGES unless the owner explicitly accepts the conflict.
Contract
/verify is a review gate, not the test runner.
It must inspect the current diff, relevant plan/spec, expected files, and verification evidence, then return one of:
APPROVEREQUEST_CHANGES
Every verdict must include Verified HEAD: <short-sha> from git rev-parse --short HEAD when inside a git repository. /ship treats a verdict as stale if HEAD changes.
For plan-driven work, /verify must use an independent reviewer context when available. The orchestrating session gathers evidence and merges the report; it does not silently approve its own work.
Process
- Identify scope:
- active plan if one exists
- otherwise current git diff
- Gather evidence:
git diff --stat- relevant plan step or task spec
- latest verify command output if available
- expected files / scope boundaries when plan-driven
- Review for:
- requirement mismatch
- scope drift
- missing tests or weak oracle
- safety issues
- release blockers
- Return a terse verdict with blockers first.
Fan-Out Mode (--deep)
Use this mode when the user invokes /verify --deep, or when a future risk classifier routes high-risk completed work into deep review.
/verify --deep runs three read-only specialist reviewers and merges their reports:
verify-code-reviewerverify-test-engineerverify-security-auditor
The verify-* agents are the executable layer. Their contracts live in ${BDC_HOME:-$HOME/.bdc}/standards/personas/*.md. Do not spawn general-purpose for this path and do not create or use same-name user-level agents such as code-reviewer.
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 · 178 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 077b95dbe763
verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository 0xmariowu/builders-dont-cry (4 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,606 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…