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 asimons81/hardproof --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/asimons81/hardproofWrote 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/asimons81/hardproof/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/asimons81/hardproof/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/asimons81/hardproof/review/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/asimons81/hardproof/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/asimons81/hardproof/review.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 | $0.00023 | $0.00286 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00114 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00057 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00029 |
Grade A, and why
review 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
Challenge the Result
Purpose
Apply judgment independent from implementation and make blocking findings durable.
When to use
Use for the REVIEW stage selected by the active run context.
Inputs
Read the request, approved design and plan, task acceptance notes, complete diff, tests, migrations, documentation, and risk records.
Procedure
- Compare observable behavior with the approved contract.
- Inspect correctness, failure paths, security boundaries, compatibility, maintainability, and test strength.
- Classify findings by impact and cite concrete files or evidence.
- Send blocking fixes back to IMPLEMENT and require re-review.
- Record the review and outcome with
hardproof_record.
Required records
Standard and Critical runs require a review artifact. Record an approved review outcome only after blocking findings are resolved; a human waiver must use the human command surface.
Exit criteria
Every blocking finding is fixed or validly waived, review provenance is clear, and the final diff—not an earlier snapshot—was examined.
Failure modes
Do not review from summaries alone, approve your own unsupported assertions, or bury uncertainty. Return to IMPLEMENT when the code changes.
Verification
Reinspect fixes and tests, record the final outcome, then call hardproof_transition for VERIFY.
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 · 35 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 58ce2d498e5f
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository asimons81/hardproof (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 286 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
test-harness
Generates pytest test suites with happy path, edge cases, error conditions, fixture scaffolding, mocks, async patterns. Triggers on: "generate tests", "write tests for", "test this function", "create test suite", "pytest for", "unit tests for", "mock strategy for".
repo-readiness-audit
Use when a user asks whether an identified repository is ready for further development, release work, a new feature, handoff, or a new contributor, requiring a disciplined read-only audit before an evidence-backed verdict.
hermes-change-review
Use when a branch, pull request, Kanban task, or implementation must be reviewed separately for intent fidelity, repository quality, and verification evidence before completion or merge is accepted.
security-audit
Security review and hardening workflow — root-cause analysis of vulnerabilities, authentication and authorization checks, least privilege, input handling, secret hygiene, and security regression tests. Use when reviewing code for security, fixing a vulnerability, hardening a feature, or handling auth, permissions…
code-review
Perform a structured code review of changes, checking for correctness, style, tests, and potential issues.
cli-command
Design, implement, or review Composio CLI commands under ts/packages/cli using Effect, effect/cli, services, output conventions, configuration and environment variables, and local vendor references. Use for CLI command UX, command wiring, service changes, or CLI source edits. Do not use for CLI E2E-only work; use…