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 BostonOrange/claude-code-framework --skill validategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/BostonOrange/claude-code-frameworkWrote 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/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/validate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/validate/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/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/validate.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 | $0.00034 | $0.01531 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00612 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00306 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00153 |
Grade A, and why
validate 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 1mo 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 — 170 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Validate
Validate code against project standards and conventions. Runs all checks and produces a report.
Usage
/validate TICKET-1234 # Validate files for a specific ticket
/validate # Validate all uncommitted changes
Process
- Identify changed files — scope to ticket or all uncommitted changes
- Load domain references — based on what's touched
- Run all checks — see check matrix below
- Output report — checklist with ERROR/WARN/PASSED counts
Identifying Changed Files
Ticket-scoped (ID provided):
git diff --name-only origin/{{BASE_BRANCH}}...HEAD
Filter to files matching the ticket. Also check docs/stories/{TICKET_ID}/.
All uncommitted (no ID):
git diff --name-only HEAD
git diff --name-only --cached
Check Matrix
IMPORTANT: Customize this section for your project. The checks below are templates — replace with your actual coding standards.
Code Standards (ERROR)
| Check | How to Detect | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Error handling on catch blocks | Grep for catch blocks, verify each has proper error tracking | ERROR |
| No debug/console.log in production | Grep for debug statements in non-test files | ERROR |
| No commented-out code | Grep for patterns of commented code | WARN |
| No hardcoded secrets/IDs | Grep for patterns matching secrets, IDs, tokens | ERROR |
| Test classes/files follow conventions | Check test file naming and structure | ERROR |
| Type conventions | Check language-specific type usage | WARN |
| No queries/IO in loops | Check for performance anti-patterns | ERROR |
| Constants over magic values | Flag repeated string/number literals | WARN |
Test Quality (ERROR)
| Check | How to Detect | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| No inline test data construction | Tests should use factories/fixtures | ERROR |
| No production data in tests | Check for SeeAllData or equivalent |
ERROR |
| Uses test helpers/factories | Verify standard test patterns used | WARN |
| Adequate assertions | Check test methods have assertions | WARN |
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 170 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 256bcfb12db9
validate is a skill published in the GitHub repository BostonOrange/claude-code-framework (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,531 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
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…
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…
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…