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/gleanwork/cursor-plugins/verify-rfcnpx skills add gleanwork/cursor-plugins --skill verify-rfcgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gleanwork/cursor-pluginsWhat 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 | $0.00083 | $0.01504 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00042 | $0.00752 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00301 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00150 |
Grade A, and why
verify-rfc 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 2d 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 verify-rfc — 0 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 — 221 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
RFC Verification
You are verifying a design document (RFC, spec, design doc) against the actual implementation. Identify completeness, gaps, and discrepancies.
Input
Determine the RFC, design doc URL, or topic from the user's request. If it is not clear, ask: "Which RFC or design doc would you like to verify? You can give me a URL, a document title, or a topic to search for."
Core Principles
- Thorough but efficient: Don't over-analyze trivial items
- Quote evidence: Show specific code when claiming implementation exists
- Be skeptical: Just finding related code doesn't mean the requirement is met
- Honesty over completeness: Better to say "couldn't verify" than claim incorrectly
Phase 1: Fetch the Design Document
Goal: Get the full RFC content
Actions:
-
Get the document:
- If given a URL:
read_document "[URL]" - If given a topic:
search "[topic] RFC OR design doc"thenread_documenton the best match
- If given a URL:
-
Extract verifiable requirements:
- Functional requirements
- Technical specifications
- Integration points
- Non-functional requirements (performance, security)
-
Create a checklist of requirements to verify
Phase 2: Search the Codebase
Goal: Find implementations for each requirement
Actions:
-
For each major requirement area, search the local codebase using your host's local file-search tools (grep/glob/read) to find relevant files by name patterns, locate specific implementations, and examine implementation details.
-
Also search Glean for related internal code:
code_search "[requirement] implementation" -
Document what you find for each requirement
Phase 3: Vet Each Finding (CRITICAL)
Goal: Rigorously verify claims — BE SKEPTICAL
For each requirement × implementation pair, evaluate:
Match Quality Test
- Does the code actually implement this requirement?
- ✅ IMPLEMENTED: Clear, direct implementation with evidence
- ⚠️ PARTIAL: Some aspects present, others missing
- ❓ UNCLEAR: Code exists but doesn't clearly fulfill requirement
- ❌ NOT FOUND: No evidence of implementation
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 221 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A ba5afb6d4c4e
verify-rfc is a skill published in the GitHub repository gleanwork/cursor-plugins (4 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 1,504 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to verify-rfc, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
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…
babysit-pr
Babysit a GitHub pull request after creation by continuously polling review comments, CI checks/workflow runs, and mergeability state until the PR is merged/closed or user help is required. Diagnose failures, retry likely flaky failures up to 3 times, auto-fix/push branch-related issues when appropriate, and keep…
imagegen
Generate or edit raster images when the task benefits from AI-created bitmap visuals such as photos, illustrations, textures, sprites, mockups, or transparent-background cutouts. Use when Codex should create a brand-new image, transform an existing image, or derive visual variants from references, and the output…
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…
next-cache-components-optimizer
Drive a Next.js route to instant navigation by setting up an agentic loop, under Cache Components / PPR, on initial load (hard navigation) and client-side navigation (soft navigation). Encode the goal as a failing @next/playwright instant() e2e and work it to green, one verified route at a time; the shipped test then…