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 ComeOnOliver/skillshub --skill verify-email-snapshotsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ComeOnOliver/skillshubWrote 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/comeonoliver/skillshub/verify-email-snapshots)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/comeonoliver/skillshub/verify-email-snapshots"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/comeonoliver/skillshub/verify-email-snapshots/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/comeonoliver/skillshub/verify-email-snapshots"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/comeonoliver/skillshub/verify-email-snapshots.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 | $0.00036 | $0.01948 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00974 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00390 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00195 |
Grade A, and why
verify-email-snapshots 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 13d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to verify-email-snapshots — 1 line differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 326 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Snapshot Testing Email Templates with Verify
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when:
- Testing email template rendering for regressions
- Validating MJML templates compile to expected HTML
- Reviewing email changes in code review (diffs are visual)
- Ensuring variable substitution works correctly
Related skills:
aspnetcore/mjml-email-templates- MJML template authoringaspire/mailpit-integration- Test email delivery locallytesting/snapshot-testing- General Verify patterns
Why Snapshot Test Emails?
Email templates are:
- Visual - Small changes can break rendering across clients
- Hard to unit test - Output is complex HTML, not simple values
- Prone to regression - Template changes can have unintended effects
Snapshot testing captures the rendered HTML and fails when it changes unexpectedly.
Installation
dotnet add package Verify.Xunit # or Verify.NUnit, Verify.MSTest
Basic Email Snapshot Test
[Fact]
public async Task UserSignupInvitation_RendersCorrectly()
{
// Arrange
var renderer = _services.GetRequiredService<IMjmlTemplateRenderer>();
var variables = new Dictionary<string, string>
{
{ "PreviewText", "You've been invited to join Acme Corp" },
{ "OrganizationName", "Acme Corporation" },
{ "InviteeName", "John Doe" },
{ "InviterName", "Jane Admin" },
{ "InvitationLink", "https://example.com/invite/abc123" },
{ "ExpirationDate", "December 31, 2025" }
};
// Act
var html = await renderer.RenderTemplateAsync(
"UserInvitations/UserSignupInvitation",
variables);
// Assert
await Verify(html, extension: "html");
}
This creates UserSignupInvitation_RendersCorrectly.verified.html on first run.
Reviewing Email Changes
When a template changes, the test fails with a diff. Review options:
1. Visual Diff Tool
# Configure diff tool (one-time)
dotnet tool install -g verify.tool
verify accept # Accept all pending changes
verify review # Open diff tool
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 326 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A c235a19bfe9c
verify-email-snapshots is a skill published in the GitHub repository ComeOnOliver/skillshub (63 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 1,948 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to verify-email-snapshots, differing in 1 line, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
kotlin-testing
Kotlin testing patterns with Kotest, MockK, coroutine testing, property-based testing, and Kover coverage. Follows TDD methodology with idiomatic Kotlin practices.
tdd-workflow
Use this skill when writing new features, fixing bugs, or refactoring code. Enforces test-driven development with 80%+ coverage including unit, integration, and E2E tests.
react-testing
React component testing with React Testing Library, Vitest/Jest, MSW for network mocking, accessibility assertions with axe, and the decision boundary between component tests and Playwright/Cypress end-to-end runs. Use when writing or fixing tests for React components, hooks, or pages.
react-patterns
React 18/19 patterns including hooks discipline, server/client component boundaries, Suspense + error boundaries, form actions, data fetching, state management decision trees, and accessibility-first composition. Use when writing or reviewing React components.
rust-testing
Rust testing patterns including unit tests, integration tests, async testing, property-based testing, mocking, and coverage. Follows TDD methodology.
e2e-testing
Playwright E2E testing patterns, Page Object Model, configuration, CI/CD integration, artifact management, and flaky test strategies. Use when writing Playwright tests, structuring page objects, or fixing flaky E2E runs in CI.