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 DailybotHQ/deepworkplan-skill --skill verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DailybotHQ/deepworkplan-skillWrote 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/dailybothq/deepworkplan-skill/verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dailybothq/deepworkplan-skill/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dailybothq/deepworkplan-skill/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/dailybothq/deepworkplan-skill/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dailybothq/deepworkplan-skill/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 | $0.00059 | $0.04369 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.01748 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00874 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00437 |
Grade A, and why
deepworkplan-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 3d 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 — 224 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
DeepWorkPlan — Verify (conformance check)
Check, objectively, whether a repository is DeepWorkPlan-conformant (AI-first and agent-pilotable) and whether its Deep Work Plans are well-formed. This sub-skill is read-only: it reports pass/fail, it does not change files. The normative criteria are defined in the specification's Conformance document (https://deepworkplan.com/spec).
Shared resources (read these)
../shared/context.sh— resolve the repo root and.dwp/.../shared/dwp-paths.md— plans live at.dwp/plans/<plan>/.conformance.sh— the mechanical conformance layer (run it first).- Guide (essential — read for this flow): none — the spec is the standard being checked.
- Working principles (conditional): read
../shared/working-principles.mdwhen reviewing repository agent rules; no additional read for plan-only checks. - Spec (conditional — read the named sections only when the trigger fires):
../spec/PLAN_STATE.md§4–§6 when interpreting a state-layer finding (desync, takeover, checkpoint evidence) or a declared-standard report — the checker enforces the contract; consult the spec when explaining or adjudicating a finding. - Guide (conditional — read only when the trigger fires):
../guide/structure.md§1–§2 when a naming or layout finding needs the rationale.
Run the mechanical layer first
Start every verification by running the automated checker — it covers the
structural checks below objectively, exits 0 (conformant) / 1 (findings) /
2 (UNVERIFIED — plan structure could not be checked because Python 3.9+ is
missing; a CI gate must not treat that as success), and detects
markdown-vs-state.json desync:
bash {skill_dir}/verify/conformance.sh # repo + every plan
bash {skill_dir}/verify/conformance.sh --repo-only
bash {skill_dir}/verify/conformance.sh --plan <plan>
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 3d ago Changed ab8d1bda36a9
- 4d ago Changed 26a299be0cf6
- 5d ago Changed 6f3378ba1dbb
- 6d ago Changed 527b062074b7
- 7d ago Changed · +5 lines 81ad5bccdeef
- 9d ago Changed b1fd0a687f87
- 11d ago Changed d2ca946e203f
- 15d ago Changed 5702db5aa1a1
- 18d ago Changed · +20 lines eecdfe300ca3
- 29d ago First seen · 199 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 1d2979e6af6a
deepworkplan-verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository DailybotHQ/deepworkplan-skill (23 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 4,369 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
kiro-review
Review a task implementation against approved specs, task boundaries, and verification evidence. Use after an implementer finishes a task, after remediation, or before accepting a task as complete.
gsd-ns-review
quality gates | code review debug audit security eval ui.
best-practices
Apply modern web development best practices for security, compatibility, and code quality. Use when asked to "apply best practices", "security audit", "modernize code", "code quality review", or "check for vulnerabilities".
review
Review code changes for security, performance, bugs, and quality. Reviews staged changes, unstaged changes, specific commits, or PR-ready diffs.
kiro-validate-gap
Analyze implementation gap between requirements and existing codebase.
spec-kitty-mission-review
Review a fully merged Spec Kitty mission post-merge (all WPs done/approved) to verify spec→code fidelity, FR coverage, drift, risks, and security. Triggers: "review the merged mission", "post-merge mission review", "verify the completed mission", "audit the mission implementation", "mission-level acceptance review"…