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 byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit --skill confidence-checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kitWrote 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/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/confidence-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/confidence-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/confidence-check/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/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/confidence-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/confidence-check.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 | $0.00043 | $0.01372 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00686 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00274 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00137 |
Grade A, and why
confidence-check 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 12d 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 — 87 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Confidence Check — earn the right to start
Trigger phrases: "confidence check", "ready to implement", "before I start", "am I sure enough", "readiness"
When
Right before implementation code gets written for anything beyond a one-line change, and after the scope is clear ([[spec-planning]] / planner). Every other gate in this kit fires at the end — review, DoD, the commit approval. Those catch bad code. None of them catch good code that should never have been written: the duplicate of a helper that already exists, the pattern that fights the project's architecture, the call built against an API that behaves differently than remembered. That waste is invisible to a reviewer, because what they see is a clean diff.
The five checks
Each is answered with evidence, not with a feeling. Name what you ran or read.
| # | Check | How it is actually answered |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Does it already exist? | Grep/Glob the codebase for the behaviour and its likely other names. A near-duplicate counts. |
| 2 | Does it fit this project? | Read CLAUDE.md + the relevant project skill. Same stack, same pattern, no new dependency smuggled in. |
| 3 | Is the external claim verified? | The API / library / config behaviour you are relying on: read the real docs or the installed source. Recalled API shapes are the single most common wrong assumption. |
| 4 | Is there a working reference? | An existing call site in this repo, or a known-good implementation. "It should work like this" is not one. |
| 5 | Is the root cause known? | For a fix: the cause, not the symptom. Unknown → this is a [[systematic-debugging]] task, not an implementation task. |
The verdict is not a score
The tempting form is a weighted score with a threshold. It is theatre: with five checks and any sane bar, a single failure sinks it anyway, so the weights only decorate a decision that was already binary. So: any "no" is a stop. Say which check failed and do the one thing that answers it — search, read the doc, find the reference, debug the cause — then start. If the user wants to proceed with a known gap, that is their call to make explicitly, and it gets written down as an assumption, not swallowed.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 87 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 3b123eb08240
confidence-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit (22 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 1,372 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
security-compliance
Guides security professionals in implementing defense-in-depth security architectures, achieving compliance with industry frameworks (SOC2, ISO27001, GDPR, HIPAA), conducting threat modeling and risk assessments, managing security operations and incident response, and embedding security throughout the SDLC.
stride-analysis-patterns
Apply STRIDE methodology to systematically identify threats. Use when analyzing system security, conducting threat modeling sessions, or creating security documentation.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
prompts-chat
Use when searching, installing, or improving AI skills and prompts via prompts.chat or skills.sh. Triggers on skill search, prompt lookup, install skill, improve prompt, prompts.chat.
writing-fragments
Grilling session that mines the user for fragments — heterogeneous nuggets of writing (claims, vignettes, sharp sentences, half-thoughts) — and appends them to a single document as raw material for a future article. Use when the user wants to develop ideas before imposing structure, or mentions "fragments", "ideate"…
caveman-help
Quick-reference card for all caveman modes, skills, and commands. One-shot display, not a persistent mode. Trigger: /caveman-help, "caveman help", "what caveman commands", "how do I use caveman".