Jolt is a zero-knowledge virtual machine for RISC-V that enables programs to be executed and cryptographically proven. It is for developers and contributors working with zero-knowledge proofs and virtual machines, while the catalogue entries provide instructions and skills for using or developing Jolt.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to a16z/jolt. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/a16z/jolt/main/.claude/skills/comment-policy/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/a16z/joltWrote 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/a16z/jolt/comment-policy)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/a16z/jolt/comment-policy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/a16z/jolt/comment-policy/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/a16z/jolt/comment-policy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/a16z/jolt/comment-policy.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 | $0.00072 | $0.02061 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00824 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00412 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00206 |
Grade A, and why
comment-policy 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 22d 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 — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Comment policy
Delete comments. Report what was deleted, what was kept and why, and which symbols need a refactor so the comment is no longer needed. Touch comments and lint suppressions only. Never write, move, or reshape application code; that is the MUST KILL list's job, handed to a separate change.
Posture
- Default is delete. A comment survives only by matching one clause of the keep list below. If unsure whether a clause applies, delete.
IMPORTANT,do not remove,too risky,fine for now, and any long justification are signals to read the nearby code before judging. If no keep clause applies, the comment is covering for the code: delete it and flag the symbol.- A kept comment must be true today: the enforcement point, bug, coupled file, or external constraint it names exists on a live path. Unproven after reading the code: delete.
- Never shorten a bad comment into a better-sounding justification. Delete it, or keep it whole.
- Every flag names a real symbol inside scope at a real
file:line. Invent nothing.
Keep list
Only these survive. Everything else is deleted.
- License or legal headers.
- Non-obvious behaviour forced by an external dependency, platform, vendor, or protocol the repo cannot reshape (arkworks fork behaviour, RISC-V spec corner cases, guest toolchain quirks).
- Directives a tool reads:
#[rustfmt::skip],# fmt: skip, shebangs,# shellcheck shell=/source=, encoding and schema pragmas. Lint suppressions are judged below, not here. - Doc comments that define a public API contract (
///,//!, Python docstrings, JavaScript/** */on exported items). One that only restates the signature is not a contract. - Issue or RFC links explaining a constraint the code cannot express, including
TODO(#issue)only when the linked issue explains that constraint; algorithm explanations, with paper/spec links where applicable. - Invariants or contracts the type system cannot express, stating WHERE they are enforced (name the checking function or specific fixture). Without the where, delete. Never keep a comment that calls a property constraint-enforced when it holds only for the honest prover or under a
debug_assert. - Why-not notes and warnings for non-obvious gotchas that prevent reintroducing a known bug, soundness gap, deadlock, or race.
- Pointers to non-local coupling: keep-in-sync with another file, crate, or format (relation ordering owned by
jolt-claims, serialized enum discriminants, transcript absorption order mirrored by prover and verifier, constants mirrored incommon). - Soundness or security reasoning (why this bound check suffices, why this input is trusted).
// SAFETY:onunsafebelongs here.
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.
- 22d ago First seen · 88 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A d2e2018ff62d
comment-policy is a skill published in the GitHub repository a16z/jolt (1,059 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 2,061 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-10-07.
Other skills, from other repositories
implementing-zero-knowledge-proof-for-authentication
Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) allow a prover to demonstrate knowledge of a secret (such as a password or private key) without revealing the secret itself. This skill implements the Schnorr identificati.
zero-knowledge-proofs
Use this skill when the user says 'ZK circuit', 'Circom', 'zk-SNARK', 'Groth16', 'PLONK', 'trusted setup', 'ptau', 'privacy-preserving proof'. Covers writing arithmetic circuits (Circom), choosing a proving system, and the trusted-setup lifecycle. Do NOT use for: full ZK domain reference (use…
flounder
Operates Flounder, an autonomous white-hat security auditor. Use when a user asks for a security audit, bug-bounty review, vulnerability investigation, or exploit proof for a public-source or authorized repository, source tree, package, smart contract, Solidity/EVM project, ZK or proof-system code, deployed address…
zkp-toolkit
Zero-Knowledge Proof utilities - proof generation, verification, selective disclosure, ZK-Rollup batching, and benchmarking across ZK systems.
release-pr-review
Review pass on an open release PR (release/ → main) — the step between git-wrapup and release-and-publish when a project releases in gated release PR mode. Reads the PR's commit range through the code-simplifier lens plus a correctness review, verifies whatever an automated reviewer left on the PR, lands fixes as…
code-simplifier
Cleanup pass that edits the working tree — over a session's uncommitted changes, or a named path or whole codebase. Reads git diff (or the named target) and simplifies, consolidates, and aligns code with the existing codebase — modernize syntax, cut unnecessary complexity and slop, consolidate duplicated logic, catch…