Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alexmond/jhelmnpx agentmods add skills/alexmond/jhelm/validateWrote 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/alexmond/jhelm/validate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alexmond/jhelm/validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexmond/jhelm/validate/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/alexmond/jhelm/validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexmond/jhelm/validate.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 | $0.00022 | $0.00307 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00123 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00061 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00031 |
Grade A, and why
validate 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
Format → Fix → Validate
Quick code quality check. $ARGUMENTS is an optional module name.
Step 1: Auto-format
./mvnw spring-javaformat:apply $( [ -n "$ARGUMENTS" ] && echo "-pl $ARGUMENTS" )
Step 2: Fix common violations
python3 .claude/scripts/fix_fqn.py .
python3 .claude/scripts/fix_violations.py .
Step 3: Validate (PMD + Checkstyle)
./mvnw validate $( [ -n "$ARGUMENTS" ] && echo "-pl $ARGUMENTS" ) 2>&1 | grep -E "^\[ERROR\]|violations|PMD Failure"
Report
| Check | Result |
|---|---|
| Format | Applied / Already clean |
| FQN fix | N files fixed / Clean |
| Violations fix | N files fixed / Clean |
| PMD | 0 violations / N violations |
| Checkstyle | 0 violations / N violations |
If violations remain after auto-fix, list them and suggest manual fixes per the /checkstyle skill.
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 · 42 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A b12291925eda
validate is a skill published in the GitHub repository alexmond/jhelm (7 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 307 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
mcp-java-dev-tools-bug-drill
Discover bounded Java method drill candidates or run a Probe-guided diagnostic drill for one selected method and return an evidence-backed Markdown report.
mcp-java-dev-tools-bug-fix
Create a proposal-only, evidence-backed Java bug-fix diagnosis from issue context and behavioral reproduction steps. Use when expected behavior and how to reproduce are known, even when endpoint, class, method, logs, or technical request details are not yet known.
mcp-java-dev-tools-line-probe-run
Run strict single-line JVM probe verification. Use for line-hit checks, route validation, and fail-closed probe execution.
mcp-java-dev-tools-performance-plan-crafter
Create or update deterministic performance plans (metadata.json, contract.json, plan.md) under .mcpjvm/.../plans/performance. Use when authoring workload-centric Java performance-suite Artifacts with required strict line-hit verification.
mcp-java-dev-tools-performance-suite
Run MCP-first Java performance suites with required strict line-hit verification, concurrency-based workload contracts, and deterministic threshold evaluation. Use when executing or reviewing performance-suite Artifacts under .mcpjvm/.../plans/performance or execution profiles with suiteType=performance.
mcp-java-dev-tools-failure-lens
Investigate a pasted Java stack trace against an attached Sidecar Agent using bounded guided or hands-off reproduction. Use when a user wants to reproduce a Java exception with runtime Probe evidence; never use for static-only diagnosis, CI/regression execution, generic replay, or automatic Bug Fix handoff.