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/duthaho/skillhub/verdictnpx skills add duthaho/skillhub --skill verdictgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/duthaho/skillhubWrote 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/duthaho/skillhub/verdict)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/duthaho/skillhub/verdict"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/duthaho/skillhub/verdict.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 | $0.00201 | $0.02147 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00101 | $0.01073 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00040 | $0.00429 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00215 |
Grade A, and why
verdict 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 6d 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 — 168 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
verdict — technology decision briefs
/verdict <option A> vs <option B> [vs <option C>] for <context> [constraints]
/verdict revisit <path-to-previous-brief> — re-check an old verdict (see Revisit mode)
Answer one question: given this context, which option should we pick, and what evidence supports that? You research every option the same way, score against explicit weighted criteria, and write the decision up so it can be defended in a design review — or revisited later when the facts change.
Step 0 — Frame the decision
Extract from the request (ask 1–2 questions only if genuinely blocking):
- Options (2–4). If the user names only one ("should we use X?"), add the status-quo/do-nothing option and the 1–2 strongest alternatives — say you did.
- Decision context: what is being built, scale (users/QPS/data volume), team size and existing skills, current stack, timeline.
- Constraints & dealbreakers: licensing limits, budget, compliance, must-run-on-prem, language lock-in, etc.
- Criteria weights — defaults below; honor plain-language overrides ("ops burden matters most", "we optimize for hiring").
State every assumption you make in the brief header. A verdict against the wrong context is worse than no verdict.
Step 1 — Fan out: parallel research sub-agents (per option)
Spawn one research sub-agent per option, concurrently (one message, multiple
Agent calls, subagent_type: "Explore"). Each covers five angles and returns
structured findings — every claim with a url + 1-line evidence, anything
unverified marked as such:
- Project health (for OSS/tools; skip for pure approaches): GitHub keyless REST — stars trend, commit/release cadence, open-vs-closed issue velocity, bus factor, age, backing org/funding. A beautiful README with a dead repo behind it is a trap; this angle catches it. Note: keyless GitHub REST allows 60 req/hr shared across all sub-agents — budget calls, and on a 403 rate-limit mark the angle unknown rather than retrying in a loop.
- Community sentiment: HN Algolia (
hn.algolia.com/api/v1/search?query=...)- web search + Reddit fallback — what practitioners report after adopting: praise, recurring pain points, migration-away stories. Weight experience reports over launch-day hype — and over SEO comparison content ("X vs Y in 2026" listicle farms are marketing surface, not adoption evidence; a real practitioner thread outweighs ten of them).
- Technical claims: official docs + independent benchmarks/comparisons for the capabilities the context actually needs. Label every claim vendor-made vs independently verified. Note version/date — a 2022 benchmark may be void.
- Operational story: licensing (and any recent license changes), managed vs self-hosted options, pricing shape, upgrade pain, hiring pool / learning curve for the stated team.
- Security posture: CVE history and severity pattern, GitHub security advisories, how fast past vulnerabilities were patched, safety of the default configuration, and any compliance certifications the context requires. This evidence feeds the Maturity & health and Operational burden scores (no separate criterion) — but an unpatched-critical-CVE pattern can be a dealbreaker in its own right.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 168 lines · 201 tokens per session scan A 9d1e321c8921
verdict is a skill published in the GitHub repository duthaho/skillhub (9 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 201 tokens to every session and 2,147 once invoked, about $0.0010 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
session-deep-dive
Deep qualitative analysis of high-signal sessions. Spawns subagents with v2 template, synthesizes patterns, compares against known findings. Use after /session-scan.
brainstorm
Brainstorm Elixir/Phoenix features — explore ideas, compare approaches, gather requirements. Use when vague idea, not sure how to approach, or want to discuss before plan.
tidewave-integration
Tidewave MCP runtime tools — debugging, smoke testing, live state inspection, SQL queries, hex docs. Use when evaluating code in a running Phoenix app.
plugin-dev-workflow
Guide plugin development workflow — editing skills, agents, hooks, or eval framework in this repo. Use when modifying files in plugins/elixir-phoenix/, lab/eval/, or lab/autoresearch/. Ensures changes pass eval, lint, and tests before committing.
security
Enforce Elixir/Phoenix security — auth, OAuth, sessions, CSRF, XSS, SQL injection, input validation, secrets. Use when editing auth files, login flows, RBAC, or API keys.
techdebt
Analyze Elixir/Phoenix technical debt — duplicates, refactoring opportunities, credo issues. Use when asked about code quality, cleanup, or what to improve.