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 agentmods add skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-verification-protocolnpx skills add existential-birds/beagle --skill review-verification-protocolgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/existential-birds/beagleWrote 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/existential-birds/beagle/review-verification-protocol)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-verification-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/review-verification-protocol.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 | $0.00028 | $0.02592 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.01296 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00518 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00259 |
Grade A, and why
review-verification-protocol 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 — 244 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Verification Protocol
This protocol MUST be followed before reporting any code review finding. Skipping these steps leads to false positives that waste developer time and erode trust in reviews.
Anti-confabulation (gate 0 — applies to ALL review/verify skills)
Before issuing any verdict — confirm, reject, sever, fix, or adjudicate — you MUST echo the exact artifact you are judging, quoted from a source you read in this turn:
- For a code finding: the file:line plus the cited code, read freshly now (not recalled from earlier in the session).
- For a diff review: the actual diff hunk under review.
- For a structured report (e.g.
verify-llm-artifactsadjudicatingfindings[]): the finding's id + file + line + description, printed from the parsed source file, not from memory.
The artifact is the only source of truth. Never infer what you are reviewing from the branch name, the working directory, surrounding files, or recollection. If your mental model differs from the freshly read source, the source wins. A verdict issued without a same-turn echo of its target is invalid — emit the echo first, or do not emit the verdict.
This gate exists because an LLM under contextual priming will confidently adjudicate things that are not in the file. It runs before the per-finding hard gates below. Skills that consume this protocol implement it concretely: verify-llm-artifacts (Load + ECHO + ID-lock gate), review-llm-artifacts (echo finding before writing JSON), llm-artifacts-detection (anchor FILE:LINE from an opened buffer).
Hard gates (sequence)
Apply once per finding before it may appear in the review. If a gate fails, omit the finding, downgrade to Informational (per Severity Calibration), or rephrase as a question—do not ship soft accusations.
| Step | What you do | Pass condition (objective) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Anchor | Read the full enclosing symbol or module, not only the diff hunk. | You can state file path and line range (or symbol name + file) you are judging. |
| 2. Evidence | For this finding’s type, run the checks in Verification by Issue Type. | Each required check has an artifact: pasted tool output, file:line citation, or explicit "none" / "N matches" after a repo search—not a claim you "looked." |
| 3. Severity | Assign severity using Severity Calibration. | Label matches the table; requests for net-new code that did not exist in scope are Informational only. |
| 4. Format | Draft the finding for the report. | Matches [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE; Informational items do not add to the actionable count. |
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 · 244 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 540d01914de3
review-verification-protocol is a skill published in the GitHub repository existential-birds/beagle (80 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 2,592 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…
insight-error-page
Write or audit an insight-kind error page for the Next.js dev overlay. Use when creating a new errors/ .mdx page, auditing an existing one, or checking that a page matches the framework fix cards. Covers page structure, title alignment, FixCard cards with Copy prompt button, code snippets, terminology verification…