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 bdfinst/agentic-dev-team --skill source-verificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-teamWrote 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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/source-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/source-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/source-verification/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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/source-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/source-verification.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 | $0.00085 | $0.02188 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00875 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00438 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00219 |
Grade A, and why
source-verification 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 17d 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 — 211 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Source Verification
Role: worker. This command extracts and checks claims directly — it does not generate new claims, and it does not replace a human reviewer's own judgment on content that isn't a checkable factual assertion (opinions, style choices, and narrative prose are out of scope).
Wraps scripts/claim_extractor.py's
extract_claims() heuristic scan with a model-driven verification pass:
grep/read for claims about this repo's own code, WebFetch/WebSearch for
claims about external tools or specs. Never treat "couldn't check" as
"verified" — a claim that can't be confirmed is reported unverifiable,
not silently dropped and not defaulted to verified.
Procedure
Step 1: Extract claims
Run extract_claims(text) from
scripts/claim_extractor.py over the target
text or diff. This returns a list of Claim objects, each with a kind of
"code" (claim about this repo's own code/tooling), "external" (claim
about something outside this repo — a library, spec, or tool), or
"ambiguous" (both a local identifier/path/version and an external
citation phrase are present).
Step 2: Empty-state check
If extract_claims() returns zero claims, report the following message
verbatim and stop — do not proceed to Step 3:
No externally-checkable claims found in <target>.
(<target> is the file path, diff description, or other label identifying
what was scanned.)
Step 3: Verify each claim
For every extracted claim, resolve a verdict — verified, contradicted,
or unverifiable — using the path that matches its kind:
code-kind claims — grep and read this repo's own code:
- Identify the identifier, path, or version the claim names.
- Grep for it in the codebase; read the matching source.
- Compare what the claim asserts against what the source actually shows.
verifiedwhen the source confirms the claim, citing the file and line.contradictedwhen the source shows something different, citing both the actual value/behavior and the file and line.unverifiablewhen no matching identifier/path/version is found anywhere in the codebase.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 17d ago Changed 8981d6ee5644
- 25d ago First seen · 211 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A 4f5fa0ab3155
source-verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (295 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 2,188 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-23.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…