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 maintain-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/maintain-verification-skill)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ericlitman/open-pstack/maintain-verification-skill"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ericlitman/open-pstack/maintain-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/maintain-verification-skill"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ericlitman/open-pstack/maintain-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 | $0.00057 | $0.01091 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00436 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00218 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00109 |
Grade A, and why
maintain-verification-skill 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to maintain-verification-skill — 8 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 — 41 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Maintain a verification skill
A feature map rots the moment the app changes. This skill is the upkeep loop for a skill generated by /create-verification-skill (or any project-local verification skill with a feature map). The unit of rigor is the feature, not every sentence: cover every feature file from source and exercise every feature live, without terminalising every bullet.
Platform note. On Codex or another non-Claude runtime, the parallel per-feature source readers below map to spawn_agent fan-out, and the project-local skill lives under your runtime's skills location, not .claude/skills/. See codex-tools.md.
Outcomes
Pick one, and say which:
- clean — every feature got source and live coverage; nothing worth shipping. No branch, no PR.
- changed — one PR ships proven doc, harness, or map corrections.
- blocked — coverage could not finish or a proven fix could not ship safely. Say exactly what blocked it.
Edit scope
Only edit the verification skill's own directory (its SKILL.md, features/, and any harness scripts it owns). Never edit product code during a run: a behavior the map describes that the app no longer does is either doc drift (fix the map) or a product regression (report it, don't paper over it in docs).
Pass
-
Locate the target. Find the verification skill to maintain: the project-local skill whose body has launch/drive sections and a feature map (usually
.claude/skills/verify-*/). Several candidates → ask which one; none → stop and point at/create-verification-skillinstead of inventing a target. -
Index hygiene. Read the feature map README and glob its sibling files. Fix missing, extra, duplicate, or dead entries. Lightweight; no generated inventory.
-
Source wave. One read-only subagent per feature file, launched concurrently. Each explains "how does this user-facing feature work?" from source, flags likely doc drift with citations, and returns one concise live-verification recipe. Children never drive the app and never edit files. Return shape: feature summary / source entry points / likely drift or none / one recipe.
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 · 41 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A f8c694b44404
maintain-verification-skill is a skill published in the GitHub repository ericlitman/open-pstack (427 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 1,091 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to maintain-verification-skill, differing in 8 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
team-qa
Orchestrate the QA team through a full testing cycle — qa-lead strategy and test plan, qa-tester case writing, execution, sign-off.
scaffold-dotnet-test-project
MUST USE when an existing .NET test project was excluded from a .slnf/CI solution filter, disappeared from .sln/.slnx discovery, or lost its production ProjectReference; also for requests to set up, create, reuse, add, register, include, or repair a test project. Handles "tests pass directly but CI discovers zero"…
conductor-implement
Execute tasks from a track's implementation plan following TDD workflow.
test-result-feedback
Close the acceptance loop for a tested change — consume the apc test TierResult, map EACH acceptance criterion to a pass/fail outcome from structured fields (never chat text), attach an evidence ref, and write it back to the task. A SUT red is a finding, never softened to green.
cy-execute-task
Implement and verify an existing CompozyOS spec task, then update its tracking. Excludes review remediation.
implement-feature
Implement an approved feature plan with fresh-context slices, TDD, revision-bound evidence, and PR-ready output.