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 baphuongna/pi-crew --skill verification-before-donegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/baphuongna/pi-crewWrote 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/baphuongna/pi-crew/verification-before-done)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/baphuongna/pi-crew/verification-before-done"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/baphuongna/pi-crew/verification-before-done/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/baphuongna/pi-crew/verification-before-done"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/baphuongna/pi-crew/verification-before-done.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 74 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 79 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00009 | $0.00658 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00329 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00132 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
verification-before-done 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 — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
verification-before-done
Core principle: evidence before claims. A worker report, green-looking log, or previous run is not fresh verification.
Distilled from detailed reads of agent-skill patterns for verification-before-completion, TDD, review reception, and QA workflows.
Gate Function
Before any completion claim:
- Identify the command or inspection that proves the claim.
- Run the full command fresh, or explicitly state why a command cannot be run.
- Read the output, including exit code and failure counts.
- Compare the output to the claim.
- Report the claim only with the evidence.
Claim-to-Evidence Table
| Claim | Requires | Not sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | Fresh test output with zero failures | Prior run, "should pass" |
| Typecheck passes | Typecheck command exit 0 | Lint or targeted tests only |
| Bug fixed | Original symptom/regression test passes | Code changed |
| Requirements met | Checklist against request/plan | Generic test success |
| Agent completed | Worker output plus artifact/diff/state inspection | Worker says DONE |
| Safe to commit | Relevant checks pass and status reviewed | Partial local confidence |
Verification Ladder
Choose the smallest reliable gate, then escalate when risk requires it:
- Read-only inspection for plans/reviews.
- Targeted unit test for touched behavior.
- Typecheck for TypeScript/schema/API changes.
- Integration test for runtime, subprocess, state, filesystem, UI, config, or session behavior.
- Full suite before commit/release or broad changes.
- Real Pi smoke only when safe and needed.
Done Report
Include:
- changed files or read-only status;
- commands run and pass/fail result;
- artifacts, run IDs, logs, or state paths inspected;
- behavior actually verified;
- skipped checks and why;
- risks and rollback notes.
Required Final Evidence
Before finalizing any work, report:
- changed files: list of files modified (or
nonefor read-only work) - tests/checks run: command and pass/fail result for each
- artifacts: run IDs, log paths, or state files inspected
- risks and rollback notes: any known risks, how to undo the changes
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 · 83 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A cca0dec0bcb0
verification-before-done is a skill published in the GitHub repository baphuongna/pi-crew (52 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 658 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
research-engineer
An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.
tika-eval-compare
Compare extracts from two Tika builds over a corpus to detect regressions in content, encoding, exceptions, and embedded-document handling. Use for "compare before/after extracts", "eval this change against the corpus".
neuron-evaluation-engineer
Create and run AI evaluations with datasets, assertions, and output drivers in Neuron AI. Use this skill whenever the user mentions evaluation, testing AI systems, creating evaluators, dataset-driven testing, assertion-based validation, or wants to measure AI system performance. Also trigger for tasks involving…
jetson-validate-image
Use after jetson-flash-image to run static BSP checks, on-target smoke/regression tests on a flashed DUT, or both. Not for build or flash steps. Triggers: validate bsp, on-target validation.
atmos-validation
Validate Atmos projects, components, arbitrary JSON Schema inputs, EditorConfig, and GitHub Actions; use affected-file selection and native CI annotations.
skill-benchmark
Benchmark AI skill effectiveness by measuring implementation quality against legacy constraints.