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 eai-support/eai-gofer --skill 6_gofer_validategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/eai-support/eai-goferWrote 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/eai-support/eai-gofer/6_gofer_validate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eai-support/eai-gofer/6_gofer_validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eai-support/eai-gofer/6_gofer_validate/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/eai-support/eai-gofer/6_gofer_validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eai-support/eai-gofer/6_gofer_validate.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 | $0.00017 | $0.08049 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.04025 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.01610 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00805 |
Grade A, and why
6_gofer_validate 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 — 991 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Gofer Validate
You are validating that the implementation meets engineering quality standards using a 10-category rubric scored out of 100 points. This is the sixth stage of the unified Gofer pipeline.
A score of 100/100 is required to pass. Any category scoring 0 triggers failure and a brownfield restart loop.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
Prerequisites
This command expects in .specify/specs/{feature}/:
research.md- Codebase analysis (from $ $1_gofer_research)spec.md- Feature specification (from $ $2_gofer_specify)plan.md- Implementation plan (from $ $3_gofer_plan)tasks.md- Task breakdown (from $ $4_gofer_tasks)- Implemented code (from $ $5_gofer_implement)
Outline
- Context health check
- Load implementation context
- Spawn 6 specialist validation agents in parallel
- Run automated checks (build, test, lint, typecheck)
- Mutation testing gate
- Mock ratio analysis
- Semantic slop detection
- Score the 10-category rubric
- Generate enhanced validation report
- Determine PASS/FAIL outcome
- Brownfield restart on failure
- Attribution logging to JSONL
- Memory update check
The Engineering Quality Rubric
10-Category Scoring (100 Points)
| # | Category | Points | Pass Criteria | Agent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Functional Correctness | 15 | Every acceptance criterion in spec.md has a passing test exercising real code | validation-correctness |
| 2 | Test Authenticity | 15 | Zero skips, zero placeholders, zero mock-only assertions. Mutation score >= 60% if Stryker available | validation-test-quality |
| 3 | UI/E2E Verification | 10 | If feature has UI: real rendering tests pass. If no UI: points redistribute | N/A (automated check) |
| 4 | Security Posture | 10 | Zero hardcoded secrets, no disabled security features, no client-side keys | validation-security |
| 5 | Integration Reality | 10 | Integration tests use real dependencies where possible. Contract tests validate boundaries | validation-integration |
| 6 | Error Path Coverage | 10 | Public functions tested for failure modes. No empty catch blocks | validation-correctness + validation-standards |
| 7 | Architecture Compliance | 10 | File structure and patterns match plan.md and research.md | validation-standards |
| 8 | Performance Baseline | 5 | No synchronous I/O in async paths, no unbounded loops, no N+1 patterns | validation-performance |
| 9 | Code Hygiene | 10 | Zero AI slop: no TODO placeholders, no redundant comments, no magic numbers | validation-standards |
| 10 | Specification Traceability | 5 | Every user story maps to tests, every test maps to code | validation-correctness |
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 · 991 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A bcf250e59476
6_gofer_validate is a skill published in the GitHub repository eai-support/eai-gofer (1 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 8,049 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
spec-kitty-implement-review
Orchestrate the implement-review loop for Spec Kitty work packages using any configured agent. Covers agent dispatch, state transitions, rejection cycles, arbiter escalation, and dependency-aware sequencing across all 13 supported coding agents. Triggers: "implement and review WPs", "run the implement-review loop"…
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"…
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…
adversarial-squad
Deploy a bounded, profile-loaded adversarial review squad at an SDD point-cut (post-spec, post-plan, post-tasks, pre-merge, or an ad-hoc decision) so independent doctrine lenses converge on findings one reviewer would miss. Triggers: "deploy a squad", "adversarial squad", "post-tasks anti-laziness pass", "pre-spec…
spk-run-review-wp
Review a Spec Kitty work package through the runtime review surface and approve or reject with structured feedback.
spk-doctrine-bulk-edit
Recognize bulk-edit missions and apply occurrence classification guardrails before modifying many matching instances.