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 akaszubski/autonomous-dev --skill semantic-validationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/akaszubski/autonomous-devWrote 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/akaszubski/autonomous-dev/semantic-validation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/akaszubski/autonomous-dev/semantic-validation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akaszubski/autonomous-dev/semantic-validation/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/akaszubski/autonomous-dev/semantic-validation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akaszubski/autonomous-dev/semantic-validation.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00449 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00180 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00090 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00045 |
Grade A, and why
semantic-validation 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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 · 88 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A f7bc1bb976f1
semantic-validation is a skill published in the GitHub repository akaszubski/autonomous-dev (34 stars, last pushed 16d ago), with no licence file. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 449 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
reviewer
Validate proposals before implementation and generate ADR/PR documentation. Forces structured review of plans, architecture decisions, and code changes before executing. Use when making significant changes, starting new features, refactoring, or when uncertainty exists. Triggers on: review this, validate, does this…
release
Cut a brooks-lint release: set the version in package.json, propagate it across all four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file (README badges, docs site metadata), write the CHANGELOG entry, validate, then commit, push, tag, and publish the GitHub release. Triggers when the maintainer asks to "release"…
recipe-front-review
Reviews completed frontend implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality, and security, then applies user-approved React corrections.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
spike-guidance-inline
OI-3 spike harness — the INLINE (non-forked) readability-guidance variant. Surfaces the shared readability standard into the calling skill's own context. Use only when a spike consumer skill invokes it.