Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to bman654/clodex. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bman654/clodex/main/.claude/skills/pr-verification/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bman654/clodexWrote 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/bman654/clodex/pr-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bman654/clodex/pr-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bman654/clodex/pr-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/bman654/clodex/pr-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bman654/clodex/pr-verification.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00088 | $0.02629 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.01052 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00526 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00263 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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 2mo 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 — 184 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Before you open a PR
Your change will be held to a higher bar than "the suite is green." Across ~100 merged and closed PRs, three failures dominate — in this order. They are what most review rounds are spent on, and every one of them is cheaper to catch now than after a reviewer finds it.
This file is a gate, not a checklist to run alongside the PR. Nothing is pushed and no PR is
opened until every item below has been done and your local adversarial review has reported and its
findings are resolved. Running the review in parallel with git push looks like free wall-clock and
is not: a finding that lands after the branch is public costs a force-push or a second PR, it can
reach a reviewer or a merge first, and it arrives already framed as follow-up — which is how a
should-fix becomes a won't-fix. "Quick PR" is a reason to keep the change small, never a reason to
open it before the gate closes.
A review that reports "nothing to fix" still has to report before the push. The point is not that findings are likely; it is that the branch going public is the irreversible step, and the review is what tells you whether it should.
1. Tests must discriminate. Green is not evidence.
The single most common defect. Tests pass; the behavior they claim to pin is absent, unreachable, or staged in a state production can never produce.
The acceptance test: delete the feature and run the suite. If nothing turns red, the tests are theatre regardless of how many there are. One detector shipped with tests staging the scenario in a data region the detector never touches — deleting the entire feature left 85/85 green, and the detector was dead in production.
- Run the full file, not
-tisolation — they disagree, and CI runs the file. A test has passed in the full run and failed under-t. - Stage state through production producers. For chain/head/normalization work, emit the item
via
response.output_item.doneinto the expected-assistant history; never plant it directly in the request input. That region is kept verbatim and can never diverge, so a test staged there passes no matter what the code does. This defect has now been seen twice. - Mutate each independent guard and precedence branch, not just the happy path.
- Include over-scope and under-scope negatives — prove the change does not fire where it shouldn't.
- Never accept the sha256 source-digest pin as the failing test. It is a tripwire, not a behavioural test. A mutation that broke a real bridge leak passed 1329/1330 with the digest pin as the only red. If the pin is the only thing failing, the behaviour is unpinned.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 184 lines · 88 tokens per session scan A a81a0aec188b
pr-verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository bman654/clodex (108 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 88 tokens to every session and 2,629 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
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"…
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…
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…