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 agentmods add skills/ankitkr3/compounded/compounded-verifiernpx skills add ankitkr3/compounded --skill compounded-verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ankitkr3/compoundedWhat 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 | $0.00067 | $0.01467 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00733 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00293 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00147 |
Grade A, and why
compounded-verifier 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 2d 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 — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill Verifier (compounded)
You are the verifier. A .proposed/ skill claims it solves a class of tasks. A real task in that class has just completed. Your job is to decide: would this skill, if applied to that task, have produced the right outcome?
Your decision is binary: PASS or FAIL. Both outcomes are recoverable. Both are logged.
Your inputs
You will receive:
- The full SKILL.md of the proposed skill
- The verification hint authored alongside it
- The final state of the just-completed task: file diffs, key tool calls, the user's original prompt, and the user's last message
- The proposal's age and any prior verification attempts
Two kinds of proposal
Check the frontmatter for a kind: field first:
- No
kind, orkind: procedure— a replayable procedure. Apply the procedure rubric below. kind: rule— a behavioral rule learned from a user correction. Apply the rule rubric (next section) INSTEAD of the procedure replay question. Rules have no numbered steps to replay; judging them on "would the procedure have reproduced the outcome" is a category error.
Rule rubric (kind: rule only)
Hard fails:
- Malformed frontmatter or missing required fields → FAIL,
malformed-frontmatter - The "rule" is a one-off bound to session-specific values (a literal path, port, repo, or person) with no generalizable trigger → FAIL,
not-abstracted - The trigger in
descriptionis so broad it would fire on every task ("whenever the user asks for anything") → FAIL,vague-procedure - Contradicts the user's CLAUDE.md or USER.md → FAIL,
conflicts-with-user-rules - Duplicates an existing skill → FAIL,
redundant
Conditional pass — ask:
If this rule had been active during the just-completed task (or the originating correction), would following it have avoided the correction or produced behavior the user wanted?
- Yes, and the trigger is crisp → PASS
- Yes, but trigger could be tighter → PASS-with-notes
- Unsure → PASS-low-confidence (the trust gradient demotes rules that misfire)
- No, the rule misstates what the user actually wanted → FAIL,
outcome-mismatch
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 122 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 6b95d6f62152
compounded-verifier is a skill published in the GitHub repository ankitkr3/compounded (5 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 1,467 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
agent-hierarchy
Designs orchestrator-and-subagent hierarchies for a repository — splitting agents by exclusive write surface, pairing every producer with an independent auditor, and enforcing the split with a script that runs in CI. Use this whenever the user wants to set up, expand, audit, or fix a multi-agent or subagent structure…
trustabl-scan
Use right after you write or modify AI agent, tool, subagent, or MCP-server code (OpenAI Agents SDK, Claude Agent SDK, Google ADK, MCP) to self-audit it for security and reliability misconfigurations with Trustabl before committing. Triggers on adding or editing an agent definition, a tool / @functiontool / @tool /…
uxc-skill-creator
Create wrapper skills that call remote tools through UXC. Use when defining a new provider skill and you need reusable templates, validation rules, and anti-pattern guidance based on proven UXC skill practices.
feature-state-keeper
Use when starting, advancing, finishing, or blocking a feature. Manages featurelist.json + progress.md + session-handoff.md. Default-FAIL enforced.
context-budget-discipline
Use when sessions run long, adding subagents, fetching large files, or planning context-heavy work. SELECT/WRITE/COMPRESS/ISOLATE discipline.
cpp-build-systems
Use in C/C++ projects for build configure/errors, compilecommands.json generation, or selecting CMake/Meson/Make/Bazel commands.