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/avinashp/agentsatlas/verifyingnpx skills add AvinashP/AgentsAtlas --skill verifyinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AvinashP/AgentsAtlasWhat 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 | $0.00036 | $0.00783 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00392 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
verifying 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 3d 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 — 134 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Before Completion
Evidence before claims, always.
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
The Gate Function
BEFORE claiming any status:
1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
3. READ: Full output, check exit code
4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
- If NO: State actual status with evidence
- If YES: State claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying
What Requires Verification
| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| "Tests pass" | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| "Linter clean" | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check |
| "Build succeeds" | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing |
| "Bug fixed" | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed |
| "Feature complete" | Requirements checklist verified | Tests passing |
Red Flags - STOP
If you catch yourself:
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- About to say "Done!" before verification
- About to commit/push/PR without running tests
- Relying on partial verification
- Thinking "just this once"
STOP. Run the verification command.
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ tests |
| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
Correct Patterns
Tests:
Run test command → See: 34/34 pass → "All tests pass"
NOT: "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
Build:
Run build → See: exit 0 → "Build passes"
NOT: "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)
Bug fix:
Reproduce bug → Apply fix → Test → Bug no longer occurs → "Fixed"
NOT: "Changed the code, should be fixed"
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 134 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 55d8d82ccb32
verifying is a skill published in the GitHub repository AvinashP/AgentsAtlas (7 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 783 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
audit-agents-skills
Audit Claude Code agents, skills, and commands for quality and production readiness. Use when evaluating skill quality, checking production readiness scores, or comparing agents against best-practice templates.
eval-agents
Audit Claude Code agents defined in .claude/agents/ for description specificity, model tier appropriateness, tools scoping, and system prompt quality. Detects dispatch ambiguity between agents, flags over-permissive tool grants, and checks for human-in-the-loop patterns that break programmatic orchestration. Use when…
eval-hooks
Audit Claude Code hooks defined in settings.json files for validity, performance safety, and correctness. Resolves each command against the filesystem, checks exit-code strategy for blocking hooks, flags missing timeouts, and reviews interactive vs async patterns. Use when setting up hooks for the first time…
check-cache-bugs
Audit Claude Code setup for cache bugs (CC#40524): sentinel, --resume/--continue, attribution header + ArkNill B3/B4/B5.
eval-skills
Audit all skills in the current project for frontmatter completeness, effort level appropriateness, allowed-tools scoping, and content quality. Produces a scored report with effort-level recommendations for each skill. Use when onboarding to a new project, reviewing skill quality before shipping, or adding effort…
autoresearch
Autonomous improvement loop: scan codebase metrics, scaffold experiment files, run agent-driven iterations until metric improves.