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 escoffier-labs/brigade --skill checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/escoffier-labs/brigadeWrote 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/escoffier-labs/brigade/check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/escoffier-labs/brigade/check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/escoffier-labs/brigade/check.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 | $0.00069 | $0.01526 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00763 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00305 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00153 |
Grade A, and why
check 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 7d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- check — 92% identical, 20 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
check
"Check" is the expeditor's call: every plate gets looked at before it leaves the pass. Not the cook's word that it's right, not how it looked ten minutes ago - this plate, looked at now. This skill is that look, applied to any claim of done: run the thing, read the output, then say what the output says.
Core principle: evidence before claims, always. A completion claim without fresh verification is not optimism, it is a false report. Violating the letter of this rule is violating its spirit.
The iron law
No completion claim without fresh verification evidence in this same response. Have not run the proving command since the last change? Then "it works" is not available to you, and neither are its synonyms, paraphrases, or implications.
The gate
Before any claim of success, satisfaction, or readiness:
- Name the command that proves the claim. "The script works" is proved by running the script, not by running its prettiest component.
- Run it, fresh and whole. After the last change, the full thing: the actual script, the whole suite, the real build. Stale runs and partial runs prove nothing about the present.
- Read the output and the exit code. All of it. Count the failures yourself.
- Compare claim to evidence. Output contradicts the claim? The evidence wins; report the actual state.
- Then claim, with the evidence attached. Quote the command you ran and its actual output lines in the report, not a paraphrase of them. "All 34 pass" next to the run that shows it.
Skipping a step is not verifying faster; it is lying slower.
When verification fails, the failure is the finding
The proving command failed? Then the status is "not working", and that is what gets reported, with the failure output. The goal never changes from "report the true status" to "make the command exit 0". Creating a missing file the run depends on, planting fixture data, adjusting the environment, or editing the test until the command passes is not verification, it is manufacturing evidence; the claim it produces is false even though the exit code is real. Any change you made to get the run working is part of the work, goes through the same review as the work, and appears in the report. A verification step that needed the world quietly rearranged has verified the rearrangement, not the claim.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 84 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A bb8cdd477406
check is a skill published in the GitHub repository escoffier-labs/brigade (72 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 1,526 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
engraphis-memory
Give the agent durable, scoped, explainable memory across sessions and repositories through the Engraphis MCP tools. Use when you learn a convention, decision, bug cause/fix, or user preference worth keeping; when prior context would help before you answer or act (to avoid re-asking or re-deriving); when asked "why is…
experiment
Experiment engine for development rules. Treats rules as hypotheses, designs falsifiable tests, updates confidence, and graduates or kills rules. Triggers: experiment, hypothesis, prove, test rule, validate methodology, scientific, evidence.
skill2-test
Use when checking whether a skill activates, avoids false activation, improves outcomes, or works in an isolated agent environment.
python-testing
Test Python applications with pytest fixtures, parametrization, temporary paths, and regression coverage.
eval
Eval-Driven Development (EDD) for AI workflows. pass@k metrics, capability evals, regression evals. Triggers: eval, edd, pass@k, capability, regression, benchmark.
human-pass
Guide real-build acceptance: literal taps, real inputs, expected outcomes, worst case first, one sitting. Triggers: testflight, human pass, acceptance test, before we ship, hand it to the user, what should I test, release checklist, device test.