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/bartoszarendt/agenticloop/verification-evidencenpx skills add bartoszarendt/agenticloop --skill verification-evidencegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bartoszarendt/agenticloopWrote 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/bartoszarendt/agenticloop/verification-evidence)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bartoszarendt/agenticloop/verification-evidence"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bartoszarendt/agenticloop/verification-evidence.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00080 | $0.04738 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00040 | $0.02369 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00948 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00474 |
Grade A, and why
verification-evidence 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 today.
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 — 458 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification evidence
Evidence before claims, always. A success claim without a fresh run behind it is misreporting, not optimism.
Proof Kinds And Sources
For a typed required check, retain its proof kind independently from its
satisfaction source. Kinds are command, manual, and contract_proof.
Sources are pr_body, status_check, manual_observation, and
automated_observation. A status check is an allowed substitute only when the
task explicitly permits that exact source for a command check; it never
satisfies manual or contract-proof work merely because an RC ID matches. A
check that declares observations always requires its structured observation
records; even an exact successful status check cannot substitute them.
The task contract is validated before either PR-body evidence or a status check
can satisfy it. A command proof must declare its exact command in a backtick
code span. Invalid kinds or sources, status-check satisfaction on a non-command
proof, and observations with no structured PR-body observation source are
Maintainer-owned task-policy failures.
Manual and contract-proof evidence records each declared observation with the
canonical structured shape: one Observation: <id> per declared observation,
with its Level: (running_path unless the task pins name@level), a concrete
Result: or bounded excerpt, the current Artifact:, and the entry's
Source:. Copied observation names, generic pass counts, helper-only state,
parser or unit-only results, and mock-bound arguments are not evidence unless
the task pins that level as the oracle. An entry's kind comes from its own
shape: an explicit Kind:, else a backtick command is command evidence and
anything else is manual; a command-shaped entry never satisfies a manual check.
The gate
Before any "done", "fixed", "passing", "green", or "complete" claim:
- Identify the command or check that proves the claim.
- Run it fresh after the last edit.
- Read the full output and exit code.
- Verify that the output supports the claim.
- Attach the relevant evidence to the task record, implementation summary, review, or closeout.
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.
- today Changed · +8 lines f0e8cd4f1148
- 5d ago First seen · 450 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A 874ce2077d0c
verification-evidence is a skill published in the GitHub repository bartoszarendt/agenticloop (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 4,738 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
skill-creator
Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch, edit, or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy.
consulting-analysis
Use this skill when the user requests to generate, create, or write professional research reports including but not limited to market analysis, consumer insights, brand analysis, financial analysis, industry research, competitive intelligence, investment due diligence, or any consulting-grade analytical report. This…
ppt-generation
Use this skill when the user requests to generate, create, or make presentations (PPT/PPTX). Creates visually rich slides by generating images for each slide and composing them into a PowerPoint file.
deerflow-maintainer-orchestrator
Use when a DeerFlow maintainer needs comment-only GitHub issue or PR handling: resolve issue/PR scopes with gh, analyze issues, post or draft issue comments, perform PR review comments, review PR or issue batches, compare competing PRs that target the same issue, give fix strategy, risk classification, and validation…
systematic-literature-review
Use this skill when the user wants a systematic literature review, survey, or synthesis across multiple academic papers on a topic. Also covers annotated bibliographies and cross-paper comparisons. Searches arXiv and outputs reports in APA, IEEE, or BibTeX format. Not for single-paper tasks — use academic-paper-review…
academic-paper-review
Use this skill when the user requests to review, analyze, critique, or summarize academic papers, research articles, preprints, or scientific publications. Supports comprehensive structured reviews covering methodology assessment, contribution evaluation, literature positioning, and constructive feedback generation.…