Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to fulminate-io/knowledge-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fulminate-io/knowledge-mcp/main/.claude/skills/verification-evidence/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fulminate-io/knowledge-mcpWrote 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/fulminate-io/knowledge-mcp/verification-evidence)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fulminate-io/knowledge-mcp/verification-evidence"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fulminate-io/knowledge-mcp/verification-evidence/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/fulminate-io/knowledge-mcp/verification-evidence"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fulminate-io/knowledge-mcp/verification-evidence.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 | $0.00060 | $0.01357 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00678 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00271 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00136 |
Grade A, and why
verification-evidence 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 4d 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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
VERIFICATION-EVIDENCE — what "done" and "green" are allowed to mean
Done means verified
Mark a step complete ONLY against verification run THIS turn whose output you read. Before every completion: (1) the edit PERSISTED on disk (git status/diff or re-Read), not merely "I issued an Edit"; (2) every criterion command EXECUTED and returned this turn — real exit status, real output. If you catch a phantom completion of your own, reopen the step, redo it, disclose plainly.
Every behavior the step AND ticket specify is in the diff — not just what existing tests cover. Read step + ticket text as a CHECKLIST; decompose compounds (the second clause of one sentence is the canonical silent drop). A specified behavior with NO test that goes red when absent: ADD the failing-when-absent test, or surface the unverified requirement LOUDLY. Green proves what you BUILT works, never that you built everything specified.
Same probe, red and green
Red-first means the EXACT command and selector that will later report green was run against the unfixed tree and observed to FAIL — not a different invocation, not an inspection. Paste both raw outputs. Treat as RED-NEVER: a runner reporting no tests ran, a skipped harness, a build no-op'd by a missing tag, a selector matching nothing. If the repro PASSES against unfixed code, STOP — do not fix, do not weaken the test: either it doesn't exercise the defect, the defect isn't present (the plan's premise is wrong — a genuine finding), or it's conditional on state the test didn't establish. Determine which and report.
Never fake green
Do NOT delete, skip, or comment out tests to pass. A test failing because your step intentionally changes behavior gets updated to assert the NEW behavior — say so. Deleting a test is correct ONLY when its surface genuinely no longer exists, stated with the file:line proving it gone. Forbidden ways to leave a failure standing: "pre-existing / not my regression", "out of scope", "flaky" without a proven cited mechanism, skip/xfail/commented-out assertions. The one escalation: the failure reveals the CODE is wrong — fix it, or surface the found bug with evidence.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 113 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A a883a47e554a
verification-evidence is a skill published in the GitHub repository fulminate-io/knowledge-mcp (1 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 1,357 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing.
build-test
Run the project's build / typecheck / lint / test commands and emit the build.passing + tests.passing signals devloop convergence reads.
behavior-contract
Bug condition/postcondition formalization as testable Behavior Contracts. Defines invariants that must be preserved across fixes.
nw-bugfix
Bug fix workflow: root cause analysis → user review → regression test + fix via TDD.
test-first-bugs
Enforces a test-driven bug-fixing workflow. Use when a user reports a bug, failing code, an error, or asks to fix something.
refactoring-patterns
Systematic refactoring techniques, code smell elimination, pattern extraction, and legacy modernization.