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 dean0x/devflow --skill boundary-validationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dean0x/devflowWrote 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/dean0x/devflow/boundary-validation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dean0x/devflow/boundary-validation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dean0x/devflow/boundary-validation/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/dean0x/devflow/boundary-validation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dean0x/devflow/boundary-validation.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.01166 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00466 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00233 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00117 |
Grade A, and why
boundary-validation 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 7d 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 — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Boundary Validation Skill
Iron Law
PARSE, DON'T VALIDATE
Use a function that accepts a less-structured input and produces a more-structured output — or fails. After parsing succeeds, the type system guarantees correctness; no downstream code ever rechecks. "The difference between validation and parsing is that parsing gives you a new value… whose type tells you the check has been performed." — Alexis King [1]
When This Skill Activates
- Creating API endpoints or routes
- Processing user-submitted data
- Integrating with external APIs
- Accepting environment variables or configuration
- Handling database queries with user input
- File uploads or webhook processing
Core Principle: Schema at Every Boundary
A boundary is any point where data crosses a trust domain [2][3]. External data is hostile until parsed through a schema [4]. After parsing, the type carries proof of validity — no redundant checks downstream [1].
// VIOLATION: Manual validation — checks scattered, no type proof [1]
function createUser(data: any): User {
if (!data.email || typeof data.email !== 'string') throw new Error('Invalid');
// ...scattered checks, easy to miss, no type guarantee
}
// CORRECT: Parse at boundary — schema yields typed value or error [5][6]
const UserSchema = z.object({
email: z.string().email().max(255),
age: z.number().int().min(0).max(150),
name: z.string().min(1).max(100),
});
function createUser(data: unknown): Result<User, ValidationError> {
const parsed = UserSchema.safeParse(data);
if (!parsed.success) {
return { ok: false, error: new ValidationError('Invalid', parsed.error) };
}
return { ok: true, value: parsed.data }; // typed User, guaranteed valid
}
Boundary Taxonomy
| Boundary | Trust Level | Parse Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| HTTP request body/params/query | Zero trust | Schema + sanitize [4][7] |
| External API response | Low trust | Schema (API may change) [2] |
| Environment variables | Low trust | Schema on startup, fail fast [8] |
| File uploads | Zero trust | Schema + content sniffing + size limit [4] |
| Webhook payloads | Zero trust | Signature verify then schema parse [4][9] |
| Database reads | High trust | Schema optional (ORM types) |
| Internal function args | Full trust | Type system sufficient [1] |
What ships with it
4 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.
- 7d ago Changed · -31 tokens per session 1f7a36c75d49
- 1mo ago First seen · 120 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 27766d6aaafd
boundary-validation is a skill published in the GitHub repository dean0x/devflow (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 1,166 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
argot-suggest-rules
Turn a convention argot has already discovered into a scripted custom rule. Runs argot conventions, surfaces the repo's mined placement conventions (where a kind of code lives — "validation in schema files", "DB access only in migrations", "business logic in the service layer, not views") and internal-API vocabulary…
software-design-patterns-and-refactoring
Use when architecture or backend work needs pre-code structural guidance from design patterns, or post-code cleanup guidance from refactoring and code-smell-driven improvement.
api-contract-audit
Static OpenAPI contract audit - endpoint drift (spec vs code), schema drift, status-code mismatch, breaking-change detection vs previous spec version, versioning consistency, security scheme alignment, deprecation markers, Richardson Maturity L0-L3 scoring. Framework auto-gen for FastAPI, NestJS…
microservices-architecture
Guides service boundary analysis, communication pattern selection, data consistency design, API contract strategy, and resilience checklist for microservices systems. Complements the microservices fragment. Invoked when the user asks to design a microservices system, split a monolith, or review service boundaries.
gate-design
Review technical design documents for API contracts, data models, component architecture, and technology decisions.
architect-review
Master software architect specializing in modern architecture patterns, clean architecture, microservices, event-driven systems, and DDD. Reviews system designs and code changes for architectural integrity, scalability, and maintainability. Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions.