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 agentmods add skills/d-o-hub/github-template-ai-agents/verification-templatenpx skills add d-o-hub/github-template-ai-agents --skill verification-templategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/d-o-hub/github-template-ai-agentsWrote 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/d-o-hub/github-template-ai-agents/verification-template)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/d-o-hub/github-template-ai-agents/verification-template"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/d-o-hub/github-template-ai-agents/verification-template.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00066 | $0.00547 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00033 | $0.00273 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00109 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
verification-template 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 5d 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 — 72 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Skill Template
Define systematic, portable verification checklists for common operations within a specific domain.
When to Use
- Establishing a new verification protocol for a specific component.
- Ensuring consistent quality gates across different implementations.
- Automating manual verification steps into a structured checklist.
Verification Checklist
[Operation Name]
- Requirement 1: [Description of success criteria]
- Requirement 2: [Description of success criteria]
- Edge Case 1: [Description of how to verify]
[Data Integrity]
- Roundtrip: [Verify data matches after save/load]
- Schema: [Verify output adheres to expected schema]
[Security/Safety]
- Permission: [Verify restricted access works as intended]
- Sanitization: [Verify inputs are correctly handled]
Process
- Identify Operation: What specific action needs verification?
- Define Success: What does a "perfect" execution look like?
- Draft Checklist: Use the categories above to list specific checks.
- Test Checklist: Run through the checks on a real instance.
- Iterate: Refine the checklist based on discovered edge cases.
See Also
skill-creator— Create and improve skillsskill-evaluator— Evaluate and score skills
Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "This is a minor change, full verification is overkill" | Every change needs verification to prevent regressions. |
| "I've tested this manually already" | Manual testing is prone to oversight; structured checklists ensure consistency. |
Red Flags
- Skipping verification steps for "simple" changes
- Marking items as complete without actually performing the check
- Relying solely on successful build/lint without functional verification
References
AGENTS.md- Repository standards and quality gatesscripts/quality_gate.sh- Automated verification entry point
Voice & Context
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 72 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A 16376a79f844
verification-template is a skill published in the GitHub repository d-o-hub/github-template-ai-agents (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 547 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Orchestrates code review by detecting the project language and architecture, then routing to the appropriate specialized review skill (code-review-go, code-review-typescript, code-review-python, code-review-php, code-review-architecture). Falls back to the generic checklist when no specific skill applies. Invoked when…
static-code-analysis
Selects, configures, and integrates a static analysis tool for the project's language. Covers tool selection, rule configuration, CI integration, fixing existing violations, and pre-commit hook setup. Invoked when the user asks to add linting, set up static analysis, or configure a code quality tool.
code-review-architecture
Architecture-focused code review covering hexagonal boundary violations, DDD anti-patterns, CQRS misuse, and microservices coupling issues. Applied in addition to the language-specific review skill when architecture markers are detected. Invoked when reviewing hexagonal architectures, DDD patterns, or microservices…
code-review-go
Deep Go-specific code review covering goroutine lifecycle, data races, error wrapping, domain modeling, and interface design. Applied in addition to the generic code-review skill when Go code is detected. Invoked when reviewing Go PRs, Go code changes, or performing Go-specific quality checks.
code-review-php
Deep PHP-specific code review covering strict types, PHPStan compliance, PSR standards, domain modeling, and ORM boundary violations. Applied in addition to the generic code-review skill when PHP code is detected. Invoked when reviewing PHP PRs, Symfony/Laravel changes, or performing PHP-specific quality checks.
code-review-python
Deep Python-specific code review covering type annotations, async pitfalls, mutable defaults, threading safety, and domain modeling. Applied in addition to the generic code-review skill when Python code is detected. Invoked when reviewing Python PRs, Py changes, or performing Python-specific quality checks.