Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gongyijie85/dsh-eccnpx agentmods add skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/laravel-verificationWrote 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/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/laravel-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/laravel-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/laravel-verification/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/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/laravel-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gongyijie85/dsh-ecc/laravel-verification.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 | $0.00053 | $0.01006 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00503 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
laravel-verification 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 8d 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
92% identical to laravel-verification — 5 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 — 181 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Laravel Verification Loop
Run before PRs, after major changes, and pre-deploy.
When to Use
- Before opening a pull request for a Laravel project
- After major refactors or dependency upgrades
- Pre-deployment verification for staging or production
- Running full lint -> test -> security -> deploy readiness pipeline
How It Works
- Run phases sequentially from environment checks through deployment readiness so each layer builds on the last.
- Environment and Composer checks gate everything else; stop immediately if they fail.
- Linting/static analysis should be clean before running full tests and coverage.
- Security and migration reviews happen after tests so you verify behavior before data or release steps.
- Build/deploy readiness and queue/scheduler checks are final gates; any failure blocks release.
Phase 1: Environment Checks
php -v
composer --version
php artisan --version
- Verify
.envis present and required keys exist - Confirm
APP_DEBUG=falsefor production environments - Confirm
APP_ENVmatches the target deployment (production,staging)
If using Laravel Sail locally:
./vendor/bin/sail php -v
./vendor/bin/sail artisan --version
Phase 1.5: Composer and Autoload
composer validate
composer dump-autoload -o
Phase 2: Linting and Static Analysis
vendor/bin/pint --test
vendor/bin/phpstan analyse
If your project uses Psalm instead of PHPStan:
vendor/bin/psalm
Phase 3: Tests and Coverage
php artisan test
Coverage (CI):
XDEBUG_MODE=coverage php artisan test --coverage
CI example (format -> static analysis -> tests):
vendor/bin/pint --test
vendor/bin/phpstan analyse
XDEBUG_MODE=coverage php artisan test --coverage
Phase 4: Security and Dependency Checks
composer audit
Phase 5: Database and Migrations
php artisan migrate --pretend
php artisan migrate:status
- Review destructive migrations carefully
- Ensure migration filenames follow
Y_m_d_His_*(e.g.,2025_03_14_154210_create_orders_table.php) and describe the change clearly - Ensure rollbacks are possible
- Verify
down()methods and avoid irreversible data loss without explicit backups
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 181 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 577f592e4d57
laravel-verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository gongyijie85/dsh-ecc (7 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 1,006 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to laravel-verification, differing in 5 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
red-green-tdd
Red/green test discipline for implementation work. Use once a doublecheck spec is on record and implementation is about to start — write a test that fails for the missing behavior, run it to see it fail (red), make the change, run again to see it pass (green).
tdd-zh
A test-first development guide for building features or fixing bugs. Test-driven development, or TDD, means writing a test that fails, making it pass with the smallest change, and then improving the code.
implement-zh
An implementation workflow for completing work described in a specification or tickets. It encourages test-first development where appropriate, runs checks during the work, and ends with review and a commit.
test-driven-development
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code.
tdd
Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
manage-taskboard
Manage work in the native DeepSeek Harness Taskboard with exact task ids and optimistic versions. Use when an Agent must inspect project work, claim an eligible todo, record progress or blockers, verify an implementation, submit it for human review, or release its own claim; also use when a human asks how to accept…