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 closedloop-ai/claude-plugins --skill verify-findingsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/closedloop-ai/claude-pluginsWrote 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/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/verify-findings)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/verify-findings"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/verify-findings/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/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/verify-findings"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/verify-findings.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Rogue Agent · line 3 Skill modifies its own code, configuration, or behavior at runtime. Self-modification enables an agent to escalate privileges, disable safety constraints, or install persistent backdoors.Fix: Prevent the skill from modifying its own code, SKILL.md, or configuration files. Treat skill files as read-only at runtime.
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 | $0.00171 | $0.01790 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00068 | $0.00716 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00358 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00179 |
Grade A, and why
verify-findings 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 — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Finding-Verifier Fleet Dispatch (stage_23_verify_findings)
This skill is the canonical finding-verifier dispatcher for /code-review at stage_23_verify_findings. It is split out of commands/start.md so the orchestration spine stays lean; the orchestrator invokes it when the walker reaches stage_23_verify_findings. The content below is authoritative for both MODE=local and MODE=github, with mode-specific Task scheduling: GitHub mode dispatches verifiers synchronously, while local mode preserves parallel background dispatch plus blocking TaskOutput collection.
Verifier Fleet (stage_23_verify_findings)
This stage runs when the walker reaches stage_23. It implements PLN-722's finding-verification pass: each eligible finding gets an independent second opinion from a verifier agent prompted to falsify (not confirm) the original claim. Findings that survive land in verified[]; findings rejected with positive evidence land in rejected[] and surface in the "Dismissed Findings" section so humans can falsify the dismissal.
Inputs
stage_22b_verify_prepare already wrote <CR_DIR>/verify_manifest.json and one input file per eligible finding at <CR_DIR>/verifier_inputs/<finding_id>.json. Read the manifest:
{
"to_verify": [{"finding_id", "model", "input_path", "output_path", ...}, ...],
"skipped_no_verification": [...],
"deferred_budget": [...],
"cache_hits": [...]
}
cache_hits[] entries have already been materialized at their output_path; do NOT respawn them. Only entries in to_verify[] need fleet dispatch.
If verify_manifest.json is absent, do NOT dispatch any verifier — stop and report. stage_22b_verify_prepare writes it last and exits 3 without it when it could not prove the review root, so a missing manifest means the verifiers would resolve source paths against a tree that is not the one under review.
Spawn contract
First branch on MODE. GitHub and local runs intentionally use different Task scheduling because GitHub headless mode cannot survive outstanding background verifiers after the assistant turn ends.
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 Changed · +2 lines 4ada906fcb94
- 1mo ago First seen · 71 lines · 171 tokens per session scan A 499dee069f3b
verify-findings is a skill published in the GitHub repository closedloop-ai/claude-plugins (122 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 171 tokens to every session and 1,790 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
opencode
Delegate coding to OpenCode CLI (features, PR review).
requesting-code-review
Pre-commit review: security scan, quality gates, auto-fix.
code-review-excellence
Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.
github
GitHub via gh CLI: PRs, issues, reviews, repos, auth.
make-pr-easy-to-review
Prepare PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the diff".
gitnexus-explorer
Serve an interactive codebase knowledge graph web UI.