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 context4ai/workflow --skill verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/context4ai/workflowWrote 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/context4ai/workflow/verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/context4ai/workflow/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/context4ai/workflow/verify/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/context4ai/workflow/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/context4ai/workflow/verify.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 | $0.00044 | $0.02865 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.01146 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00573 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00286 |
Grade A, and why
verify 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 — 379 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify
A unified quality verification skill. Runs typecheck, lint, unit tests, and E2E tests with configurable scope. Filters known runtime noise, persists logs, and performs source-level failure analysis on any failures.
Agent Responsibility Boundaries
The agent's role when running /verify is strictly limited to:
- Execute quality checks according to the requested level
- Collect and persist logs
- Filter known runtime noise from results
- Analyze failures at the source level and report findings
The agent MUST NOT:
- Auto-fix any errors or warnings discovered during verification
- Modify source code, configuration, or test files
- Re-run failed checks after making changes
- Suggest or apply patches without explicit user request
If failures are found, the agent reports a structured analysis. The user decides next steps.
Parameter Format and Routing
/verify [level] [scope]
| Invocation | Level | What Runs |
|---|---|---|
/verify fast |
fast | typecheck + lint + unit tests (no E2E) |
/verify |
standard | fast + default E2E layer |
/verify full |
full | fast + all E2E layers |
/verify e2e [scope] |
e2e-only | E2E tests only (skips typecheck/lint/unit) |
E2E Sub-routing
When E2E tests are included, the [scope] parameter controls which E2E layer(s) run:
| Scope | Meaning |
|---|---|
| (omitted) | Default E2E layer only |
all |
All E2E layers |
<layer-name> |
Specific named layer |
<glob-pattern> |
Pattern-matched layers (e.g. stable/*) |
Route Decision Flow
User invokes /verify [args]
│
├─ args = "fast"
│ └─ Phase A only (typecheck + lint + unit tests)
│
├─ args = "" (empty / standard)
│ └─ Phase A → Phase B (default E2E layer)
│
├─ args = "full"
│ └─ Phase A → Phase B (all E2E layers)
│
├─ args = "e2e [scope]"
│ └─ Phase B only (E2E with given scope)
│
└─ args = unrecognized
└─ Report error: unknown parameter
Usage Examples
Incremental Testing Strategy
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 · 379 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 178e85fef6d5
verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository context4ai/workflow (4 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 2,865 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
test-master
Generates test files, creates mocking strategies, analyzes code coverage, designs test architectures, and produces test plans and defect reports across functional, performance, and security testing disciplines. Use when writing unit tests, integration tests, or E2E tests; creating test strategies or automation…
axiom-testing
Use when writing ANY test, debugging flaky tests, making tests faster, or choosing Swift Testing vs XCTest. Covers unit tests, UI tests, async testing, test architecture.
designing-tests
Designs and implements testing strategies for any codebase. Use when adding tests, improving coverage, setting up testing infrastructure, debugging test failures, or when asked about unit tests, integration tests, or E2E testing.
testing-blocks
Use this when you have made AEM Edge Delivery Services code changes to blocks, scripts, or styles and need to validate them before opening a pull request. Covers unit testing for utilities and logic, browser testing with Playwright, linting, and guidance on what to test and how.
JMeter Load Testing
Load and performance testing skill using Apache JMeter, covering test plans, thread groups, assertions, listeners, timers, and distributed testing.
testing-patterns
Testing strategy: pyramid, AAA, mocks/fakes/stubs, flaky tests, coverage. Triggers: test, fixture, mock, stub, e2e, TDD, Playwright, Cypress, flaky, coverage, property-based.