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 a-ariff/ariff-claude-plugins --skill cross-checkergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/a-ariff/ariff-claude-pluginsWrote 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/a-ariff/ariff-claude-plugins/cross-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/a-ariff/ariff-claude-plugins/cross-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/a-ariff/ariff-claude-plugins/cross-checker.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00036 | $0.00575 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00287 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00115 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
cross-checker 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 8d 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 — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Cross-Checker: Multi-Angle Verification
Never trust a single source. Verify from at least two independent angles before accepting a claim as fact.
The cross-checking method
For any claim, check it against multiple sources:
Source 1: The code itself
Read the actual file. What does the code do? This is the strongest evidence.
Source 2: Tests
What do the tests expect? Tests reveal intended behavior. If a test expects validateToken to return false for expired tokens, that's the designed behavior.
Source 3: Git history
What was the original intent? Git blame and commit messages reveal why code was written. "commit abc123: fix token expiration check to reject tokens older than 24h"
Source 4: Documentation
README, comments, JSDoc, API docs. Do they match the code? If docs say one thing and code does another, the code is truth but the discrepancy matters.
Source 5: Configuration
Config files, environment variables, feature flags. Runtime behavior may differ from what the code looks like.
Source 6: Dependencies
Package versions, API compatibility, deprecated features. A function might exist in the code but be broken due to a dependency update.
Minimum verification standard
| Situation | Minimum angles needed |
|---|---|
| Stating a fact to the user | 1 (read the code) |
| Recommending a code change | 2 (code + tests or git history) |
| Security-related claims | 3 (code + tests + docs/config) |
| Production deployment advice | 3 (code + config + git history) |
| "This is safe to delete" | 3 (code + grep for references + tests) |
Cross-check workflow
- Make the initial claim based on what you know
- Identify which type of claim it is (fact, recommendation, security)
- Check the required number of angles
- If sources agree: proceed with confidence
- If sources disagree: flag the discrepancy, investigate further
- If sources are insufficient: say so, suggest how to get more evidence
Red flags that demand cross-checking
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 64 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 94624714324e
cross-checker is a skill published in the GitHub repository a-ariff/ariff-claude-plugins (14 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 575 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
loop-verifier
The checker half of a maker/checker loop. Independently reviews a proposed fix before it becomes a PR. Has authority to REJECT. Never makes changes itself.
ast-analyzer
Deep Abstract Syntax Tree analysis for understanding code structure, dependencies, impact analysis, and pattern detection at the structural level across multiple programming languages.
quality-standards
Defines code quality benchmarks, standards compliance, and best practices for maintaining high-quality codebases.
pull-request-feedback-loop
Handles PR review feedback by fetching comments, grouping issues, fixing one group at a time, and verifying before replies.
code-review-pipeline
Multi-dimensional code review across correctness, security, performance, and maintainability with confidence-gated reporting and remediation loops.
verification
Verification-before-completion discipline ensuring all success criteria are met, tests pass, and reviews complete before declaring work done.