Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer. 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/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer/main/.claude/skills/tsa-edit-then-verify/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzerWrote 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/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer/tsa-edit-then-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer/tsa-edit-then-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer/tsa-edit-then-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/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer/tsa-edit-then-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer/tsa-edit-then-verify.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00267 | $0.03663 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00133 | $0.01832 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00733 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00366 |
Grade A, and why
tsa-edit-then-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 — 337 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
tsa-edit-then-verify — The full edit loop, scoped not full-suite
Source of authority. From
docs/agent-tooling-gap-report.mdline 58:Every feature update must run the self-hosted workflow:
edit action=safebefore risky edits,health action=fileon changed files,edit action=impactafter edits, its reportedverification_command, then the full default suite when risk remains.This skill is the executable form of that rule.
tsa-edit-safetyonly covers Phase A (the pre-edit gate). This skill covers A + B + C end-to-end and is the canonical replacement for the globalverifyskill (which runs the full ~5-minute suite every time).
When to use vs. not
Use when you're about to edit (or just edited) a real code file in this repo and the change is more than a 1-line cosmetic fix. The smaller the diff, the bigger the win — full pytest is ~5 min, scoped verification is typically 30-60s.
Don't use for:
- One-line typo in a doc/comment (no Python AST impact)
- Pure markdown / README edits (no symbol-level risk)
- File you're creating from scratch with no callers yet
- Read-only exploration
Why this exists (vs. verify skill)
| Skill | What it runs | Time | When right |
|---|---|---|---|
verify (global) |
uv run pytest -q (15k tests) |
~5 min | Pre-commit gate, large refactor |
tsa-edit-then-verify |
scoped verification_command from edit action=impact |
30-60s | Every feature update (the mandate) |
tsa-edit-safety |
Pre-edit verdict only | ~3s | "Is this safe to touch?" — no edit yet |
The scoped command targets only the tests reachable from the changed symbols,
via the AST call-graph. That's the whole point — edit action=impact
returns a verification_command that's narrower than pytest -q but still
covers the blast radius the AST sees.
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 · 337 lines · 267 tokens per session scan A ba76fab3e35d
tsa-edit-then-verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository aimasteracc/tree-sitter-analyzer (49 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 267 tokens to every session and 3,663 once invoked, about $0.0013 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
context7-docs
Fetch up-to-date documentation and code examples for any library, framework, SDK, CLI tool, or cloud service. Use whenever the user asks about a specific library — even well-known ones like React, Next.js, Prisma, Express, Tailwind, Django, or Spring Boot — because training data may not reflect recent API changes or…
plan-eng-review
Eng manager-mode plan review. Lock in the execution plan — architecture, data flow, diagrams, edge cases, test coverage, performance. Walks through issues interactively with opinionated recommendations. Use when asked to "review the architecture", "engineering review", or "lock in the plan". Proactively suggest when…
autoplan
Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, eng, and DX review skills from disk and runs them sequentially with auto-decisions using 6 decision principles. Surfaces taste decisions (close approaches, borderline scope, codex disagreements) at a final approval gate. One command, fully reviewed plan out. Use when…
design-review
Designer's eye QA: finds visual inconsistency, spacing issues, hierarchy problems, AI slop patterns, and slow interactions — then fixes them. Iteratively fixes issues in source code, committing each fix atomically and re-verifying with before/after screenshots. For plan-mode design review (before implementation), use…
pre-landing-review
Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues. Use when explicitly asked for the specialized pre-landing workflow. Product /review requests are handled by OpenBitFun's unified Review mechanism instead.…
miniapp-dev
A development guide for BitFun MiniApps, which are small applications that run inside BitFun. It covers creating new MiniApps as well as maintaining the MiniApp framework.