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 epicsagas/epic-harness --skill verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/epicsagas/epic-harnessWrote 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/epicsagas/epic-harness/verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/epicsagas/epic-harness/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/epicsagas/epic-harness/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/epicsagas/epic-harness/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/epicsagas/epic-harness/verify.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 44 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
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 | $0.00023 | $0.00692 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00277 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
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 1mo 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify — Pre-Completion Check
Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE. "I tested it" without output is an unverified claim.
When to Trigger
- Before a
/gosubagent reports "done" - Before
/shipcreates a PR - Before telling the user "it's ready"
- After any significant code change
Process
1. Build
# Detect and run the project's build command
npm run build # or: go build ./... | cargo build | make
Must exit 0. If it fails, fix before proceeding.
2. Test
# Run the project's test suite
npm test # or: go test ./... | pytest | cargo test
Must exit 0. If tests fail, invoke debug skill.
3. Lint
# Run linter if configured
npm run lint # or: golangci-lint run | ruff check | cargo clippy
Warnings are OK. Errors must be fixed.
4. Type Check (if applicable)
npx tsc --noEmit # TypeScript
mypy . # Python
5. Final Sanity
- No
console.log/printdebug statements left - No
TODOorFIXMEintroduced without explanation - No hardcoded test values or credentials
- All new files are tracked by git
Anti-Rationalization
| Excuse | Rebuttal | What to do instead |
|---|---|---|
| "Tests pass locally" | Did you actually run them? Trust the output, not your memory. | Run npm test right now. Show the output. |
| "I only changed one file" | One file can break the entire build. Imports propagate. | Full build + test. Every time. No exceptions. |
| "Lint warnings aren't errors" | Warnings become errors. Fix them before they multiply. | Zero warnings policy. Fix now or suppress with justification. |
| "CI will catch it" | CI feedback is 5-10 min delayed. Catch it locally in seconds. | Run verify locally before pushing. CI is the safety net, not the test. |
Evidence Required
Before reporting "ready", show ALL of these:
- Build output: exit code 0 (show the command + result)
- Test output: all passing (show summary line)
- Lint output: zero errors (show summary or "clean")
- Type check output: no errors (show
tsc --noEmitor equivalent) - Final sanity: no console.log, no unexplained TODO, no hardcoded values
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 79 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 2526c2790237
verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository epicsagas/epic-harness (18 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 692 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
audit-harness
Use when auditing HARNESS.md, pre-commit hooks, pre-push hooks, architecture gates, or CI workflows for tunacode-cli. This skill treats any mismatch, skipped gate, or failing check as a critical failure and requires manual one-by-one execution rather than make targets, batch wrappers, or summary-only audits.
knowledge-engineering-quality-and-delivery
A project-wide quality and delivery workflow covering tests, release checks, builds, publishing, and bilingual documentation for Blade Code.
laravel-verification
Verification loop for Laravel projects: env checks, linting, static analysis, tests with coverage, security scans, and deployment readiness.
reproduce
Reproduces a paper's result, a claim, an artifact or a previous run with the target and success criterion frozen first, the canonical code path run before any substitute, exact inputs, environment, seeds and commands captured, and a verdict from a fixed set, reproduced, reproduced within tolerance, partially…
acceptance-checks
Turns the acceptance criteria a task states into executable checks and runs them against the finished outputs before delivering, rather than trusting that a correct-looking analysis satisfies them; rehearses the hidden condition when the grader scores unseen instances from a described family; treats a stated formula…
submitted-code
Writes code that survives being re-executed by someone else on inputs you never saw, targeting the grader's or collaborator's runtime rather than your own, with one self-contained entry point using only the libraries the specification names, no reliance on packages you installed or files you cached during development…