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 ericlitman/open-pstack --skill create-verification-skillgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ericlitman/open-pstackWrote 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/ericlitman/open-pstack/create-verification-skill)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ericlitman/open-pstack/create-verification-skill"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ericlitman/open-pstack/create-verification-skill/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/ericlitman/open-pstack/create-verification-skill"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ericlitman/open-pstack/create-verification-skill.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 | $0.00064 | $0.01523 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00609 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00305 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00152 |
Grade A, and why
create-verification-skill scanned grade A with 1 finding 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
- **Drive:** how can an agent interact with it programmatically? Existing harnesses first — Playwright/Cypress specs, expect scripts, PTY helpers, curl-able endpoints, a debug port. Only then pick a generic recipe: brows This is a copy
92% identical to create-verification-skill — 31 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 46 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Create a verification skill
Every serious project needs a scripted way to drive the real app and prove behavior: launch it, exercise a feature the way a user would, and capture evidence. This skill generates that as a project-local skill (.claude/skills/verify-<app>/) tailored to the repo. You write the generator's output for the next agent, not for a human: it will be read cold, mid-task, by an agent that has never seen the app.
Platform note. The generated skill lands under .claude/skills/verify-<app>/ on Claude Code. On Codex or another runtime, write it to that runtime's project-skill location instead. The app-driving harness (browser/CDP, PTY/tmux, HTTP) is platform-neutral; resolve any tool names via codex-tools.md.
1. Interview the repo, not the user
Answer these from the codebase and only ask the user what you cannot observe:
- Surface: what does a user actually touch? A web UI, a CLI/TUI, a desktop app, an API, a mobile app, a library? A repo can have several; pick the primary one and note the rest.
- Run: how does the app start locally? Prefer the repo's own documented dev command (package scripts, Makefile, README quickstart). Note ports, env vars, seed data, auth.
- Drive: how can an agent interact with it programmatically? Existing harnesses first — Playwright/Cypress specs, expect scripts, PTY helpers, curl-able endpoints, a debug port. Only then pick a generic recipe: browser/CDP for web and Electron, a tmux/PTY harness for CLI/TUI, plain HTTP for services.
- Observe: what evidence can be captured? Screenshots, terminal transcripts, response bodies, logs, exit codes, DB state.
- Isolate: can two instances run side by side (ports, data dirs, profiles)? If not, say so in the generated skill: refusing to double-drive a shared instance beats corrupting the user's session.
If the checkout doesn't build or start as-is, fix that first (or report it precisely) before generating; a skill written against a broken base teaches wrong steps. When an irrelevant missing asset blocks startup (a static dir the API never serves, a sample config), the generated skill may create it, clearly marked as verification scaffolding, and remove it in cleanup.
What ships with it
3 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.
- 5d ago Changed 22e7a71e7963
- 1mo ago First seen · 46 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 5714b32ebf44
create-verification-skill is a skill published in the GitHub repository ericlitman/open-pstack (427 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 1,523 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). It is 92% identical to create-verification-skill, differing in 31 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
eval-dataset-design
A guide to creating reliable test sets for AI agents. Each evaluation task includes the request, the simulated user's behaviour, a reset starting state, and a success check that can be independently verified.
verify-omnigent
Drive Omnigent the way a user does and prove a behavior with recorded evidence, using an isolated server, runner, and mock model plus a feature map of every user entry point. Load before reproducing a user-facing bug, before claiming a fix works, or when reviewing whether a change covered every surface (session vs.…
test-master
Generates test files, creates mocking strategies, analyzes code coverage, designs test architectures, and produces test plans and defect reports across functional, performance, and security testing disciplines. Use when writing unit tests, integration tests, or E2E tests; creating test strategies or automation…
dogfood
Systematically explore and test a mobile app on iOS/Android with agent-device to find bugs, UX issues, and other problems. Use when asked to dogfood, QA, exploratory test, find issues, bug hunt, or test this app on mobile.
cua-driver
Use Cua Driver for desktop or browser tasks that are awkward or unavailable through Bash/APIs, or when the user explicitly wants GUI interaction: app testing, visual bug reproduction, form filling, calendar entry, screenshots, and demo recording. Also covers Cua setup; not OpenAI Codex Computer Use or web research.
critique
Adversarial design critique of the current work — render it, look at it, and argue for rejection. Run after the gates are green, never instead of them.