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 afaraha8403/balakit --skill proving-change-safetygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/afaraha8403/balakitWrote 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/afaraha8403/balakit/proving-change-safety)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/afaraha8403/balakit/proving-change-safety"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/afaraha8403/balakit/proving-change-safety/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/afaraha8403/balakit/proving-change-safety"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/afaraha8403/balakit/proving-change-safety.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 | $0.00086 | $0.00661 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00264 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00132 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
proving-change-safety 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 1mo 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
Proving change safety
Leading words: one safety fact, prove by running, unproven stays unproven, grep is not enough.
Listing callers is not the job. Grep those in a second. The job is the breakage grep will not show.
Copy these steps into the todo list verbatim. Skip with skip: <reason>.
- Read the change: symbols added, changed, deleted, including what the diff does not spell out.
- Name the one fact it is safe because of.
- Look where grep stops: library source, pinned version, microtasks, wire format, other languages, flags, code three hops down.
- Honest risk list: chance, cost,
file:line. Cleared items listed separately. - Prove the one fact by calling the real function (script or test). Leave the prove script in the tree. Cite its path in the reply. If you cannot get to "ran it", write unproven. If you ran it and the fact is false, write do not ship — that is not unproven.
How sure
For each safety fact, get as far down this list as is cheap, and say where it stopped.
- You said so. Worthless alone.
- You pointed at
file:lineor the library's own source. - You walked the failure and it does not reach.
- You ran it. A script or test that imports the same library the app ships and calls the exact function.
- You reproduced it in the running app.
Step 4 is the bar. Unproven stays unproven.
Reply contract
- What it does (including the non-obvious part)
- The one safety fact, the step you reached, and the proof path (or unproven)
- do not ship if the fact is false; unproven only if you did not run it
- Risks that remain
- Cleared
- Cheapest check to catch the real bug before merge
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 60 lines · 86 tokens per session scan A 5015feffcf62
proving-change-safety is a skill published in the GitHub repository afaraha8403/balakit (1 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 86 tokens to every session and 661 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 2026-09-11.
Other skills, from other repositories
quality-gate
Orchestrates the QUALITY pipeline stage for egregore work items, running code review, unbloat, and test updates. Use when running quality checks before a PR.
plugin-review
Review plugin quality with tiered checks and dependency scoping. Use for PR and pre-release audits.
working-effectively-with-legacy-code
Apply Michael Feathers-inspired legacy-code rules when changing hard-to-test code safely with characterization tests, seams, sprout methods, or wrap methods.
refactoring-guru
Apply Refactoring.Guru-inspired rules when diagnosing code smells, choosing refactoring techniques, and stopping cleanup before uncontrolled redesign.
refactoring
Apply Martin Fowler-inspired refactoring rules when improving existing code structure while preserving observable behavior.
verification-quality
Truth scoring, code-quality verification, and automatic rollback with a high accuracy threshold. Use when validating agent output before it ships, gating changes on quality, or adding a verify-and-rollback safety loop.