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/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-verifynpx skills add gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflowWrote 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/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-verify.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 | $0.00075 | $0.00722 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.00361 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
review-verify 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Verify (internal)
Composed by review-change / product-audit within their conversation — on any
agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. Findings only; never edits,
never refactors.
Scope
The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.
Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)
✓ The project's verification gate ran in THIS review (type-check, tests, build per the project's declared commands) — paste exit status per command ✓ The change's primary claimed behavior was exercised for real (run the CLI/endpoint/function; paste the actual observed output) ✓ At least one failure-mode from the SPEC's dev scenarios was reproduced (bad input, missing file, error path) and behaved as specified ✓ New/changed tests actually fail when the implementation is reverted or broken (mutate or stash to prove they assert something — restore after) ✓ No test was skipped/disabled to get green (grep for skip/only/todo markers in the diff) ✓ The build artifact/dev server starts cleanly (no new warnings that indicate breakage) ✓ Anything that can only be confirmed by a human (visual, device, locale, load) is listed explicitly under "Manual" — never silently dropped
Materiality bar
Report a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the project
explicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence.
Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference
with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios.
An empty table with Decision: PASS is the expected result for a well-formed
change — never pad the table.
Return exactly
REVIEW VERIFY — scope: <scope>
| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what> | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |
Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
Summary: <1-2 sentences>
Manual (a human must check): <bullet list, or "none">
Decision: PASS | FAIL
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 Changed · +9 lines 7d808a66ac10
- 6d ago First seen · 67 lines · 75 tokens per session scan A cecbcb846646
review-verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository gtrabanco/agentic-workflow (21 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 722 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
think-like-me
Personal engineering rules and reasoning patterns the user has curated over time. Consult BEFORE writing, modifying, debugging, or designing any technical feature — rules often cover domain-specific gotchas (e.g., mobile audio timers need background mode) that generic answers miss. Also triggers on /learn-this, "learn…
offensive-mitigations
Security mitigation reference and bypass catalog: ASLR, DEP/NX, RELRO, stack canaries, CFI, sandboxing, seccomp. Covers both detection of enabled mitigations and known bypass techniques. Use when assessing target hardening or planning exploit mitigation bypasses.
offensive-exploit-development
Exploit development operational guide: environment setup, debugging workflow, PoC development lifecycle, writing reliable exploits, using pwntools/pwndbg, heap exploitation techniques, and weaponization considerations. Use when actively developing exploits or setting up an exploit dev environment.
offensive-advanced-redteam
Comprehensive red team operations methodology covering full engagement lifecycle from planning through reporting. Addresses engagement scoping and rules of engagement negotiation, multi-tier C2 infrastructure design with redirectors and domain fronting, malleable traffic profiles and beacon tradecraft, OPSEC…
offensive-dependency-confusion
Deep-dive offensive methodology for dependency confusion and namespace attacks across all major package ecosystems. Covers npm scope confusion exploiting the gap between public and private scoped packages and .npmrc misconfigurations where registry mappings fail to pin internal scopes exclusively. Addresses PyPI…
offensive-crypto-attacks
Systematic methodology for identifying and exploiting cryptographic implementation weaknesses in real-world applications. Covers padding oracle attacks against CBC-mode ciphers with PKCS7 padding (Vaudenay's original attack through modern padbuster automation), ECB mode exploitation including block cut-and-paste and…