Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to amiable-dev/llm-council. 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/amiable-dev/llm-council/master/.github/skills/council-verify/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/amiable-dev/llm-councilWrote 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/amiable-dev/llm-council/council-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/amiable-dev/llm-council/council-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/amiable-dev/llm-council/council-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/amiable-dev/llm-council/council-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/amiable-dev/llm-council/council-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 | $0.00060 | $0.01142 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00571 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00228 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
council-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 — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Council Verification Skill
Use LLM Council's multi-model deliberation to verify work with structured, machine-actionable verdicts.
When to Use
- Verify code changes before committing
- Validate implementation against requirements
- Check documents for accuracy and completeness
- Get multi-model consensus on quality
Workflow
- Snapshot: pin the git commit SHA (reproducibility)
- Verify: call
mcp:llm-council/verify(isolated context) - Act on the verdict (structured JSON below)
- Audit: transcript via
mcp:llm-council/audit
Parameters
| Parameter | Type | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
snapshot_id |
string | required | Git commit SHA for reproducibility |
rubric_focus |
string | null | Focus area: "Security", "Performance", "Accessibility" |
confidence_threshold |
float | 0.7 | Minimum confidence for PASS verdict |
tier |
string | "balanced" | Confidence tier: "quick", "balanced", "high", "reasoning" |
Tier Selection Guide
| Tier | Use When | Timeout | Max Input |
|---|---|---|---|
quick |
Fast sanity checks, small diffs | ~30s | 15K chars |
balanced |
Default. Routine verification | ~90s | 30K chars |
high |
Security-critical reviews only | ~180s | 50K chars |
reasoning |
Complex architectural decisions | ~600s | 50K chars |
Important: high/reasoning use slow frontier models. For large diffs (>20K chars), prefer balanced to avoid timeouts.
Evidence (ADR-042)
Pass pre-computed analysis from upstream tools (linters, slop detectors) via evidence: List[EvidenceItem]. Council emits evidence_summary and evidence_warnings in the response. See references/evidence.md for fields, limits, example.
Output Schema
{
"verdict": "pass|fail|unclear",
"confidence": 0.85,
"confidence_calibrated": 0.62,
"unclear_reason": null,
"rubric_scores": { "accuracy": 8.5, "completeness": 7.0, "...": "..." },
"blocking_issues": [...],
"rationale": "Chairman synthesis...",
"transcript_location": ".council/logs/...",
"partial": false,
"timeout_fired": false,
"completed_stages": ["stage1", "stage2", "stage3"],
"timing": { "total_elapsed_ms": 142000, "budget_utilization": 0.53, "...": "..." },
"input_metrics": { "content_chars": 32000, "tier": "high", "...": "..." },
"evidence_summary": [...],
"evidence_warnings": [...]
}
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 101 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A c72ba33741f0
council-verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository amiable-dev/llm-council (41 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 1,142 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
live-audit
Audit steam-games-mcp — build/test/lint gate, live MCP tool edge-case sweep (input validation, SteamID64/vanity/appid edge cases, key-gating), and source-level code review. Use when asked to test/audit the published or just-fixed steam-games-mcp package, hunt for bugs/edge cases, or repeat "the same kind of testing as…
review
Assess the blast radius of a change and review a diff — what it touches, what could break, which tests to run, and the prior decisions behind it. Use before a refactor, rename, or signature change, and when reviewing a pull request or your own uncommitted diff.
tool-description-check
Self-check a new or edited MCP tool description/field .describe() text before committing — verify every behavioral claim against live testing or source, check for contradictions with sibling tools, and score against Glama's Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS) rubric. Use whenever a tool description or schema field…
java-best-practices
Java coding best practices. Use when writing or reviewing Java code (17+). Covers modern features, error handling, and patterns.
tool-defs-analysis
Read-only audit of MCP definition language across an existing surface — tools, resources, prompts, server instructions. Walks every definition file and checks 16 categories the LLM reads to decide whether and how to call: voice & tense, internal leaks, audience leaks, defaults, recovery hints, field descriptions…
code-simplifier
Post-session code review and cleanup against a working tree of changes. Analyzes git diff to simplify, consolidate, and align changed code with the existing codebase — modernize syntax, remove unnecessary complexity, consolidate duplicated logic, catch efficiency issues. Use after a substantive working session, or…