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/heshamfs/materials-simulation-skills/simulation-validatornpx skills add HeshamFS/materials-simulation-skills --skill simulation-validatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HeshamFS/materials-simulation-skillsWrote 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/heshamfs/materials-simulation-skills/simulation-validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/heshamfs/materials-simulation-skills/simulation-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/heshamfs/materials-simulation-skills/simulation-validator.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 | $0.00123 | $0.03919 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00062 | $0.01959 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00784 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00392 |
Grade A, and why
simulation-validator 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 — 298 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Simulation Validator
Goal
Provide a three-stage validation protocol: pre-flight checks, runtime monitoring, and post-flight validation for materials simulations.
Requirements
- Python 3.10+
- No external dependencies (uses Python standard library only)
- Works on Linux, macOS, and Windows
Inputs to Gather
Before running validation scripts, collect from the user:
| Input | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Config file | Simulation configuration (JSON/YAML) | simulation.json |
| Log file | Runtime output log | simulation.log |
| Metrics file | Post-run metrics (JSON) | results.json |
| Required params | Parameters that must exist | dt,dx,kappa |
| Valid ranges | Parameter bounds | dt:1e-6:1e-2 |
Decision Guidance
When to Run Each Stage
Is simulation about to start?
├── YES → Run Stage 1: preflight_checker.py
│ └── BLOCK status? → Fix issues, do NOT run simulation
│ └── WARN status? → Review warnings, document if accepted
│ └── PASS status? → Proceed to run simulation
│
Is simulation running?
├── YES → Run Stage 2: runtime_monitor.py (periodically)
│ └── Alerts? → Consider stopping, check parameters
│
Has simulation finished?
├── YES → Run Stage 3: result_validator.py
│ └── Failed checks? → Do NOT use results
│ → Run failure_diagnoser.py
│ └── All passed? → Results are valid
Choosing Validation Thresholds
| Metric | Conservative | Standard | Relaxed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mass tolerance | 1e-6 | 1e-3 | 1e-2 |
| Residual growth | 2x | 10x | 100x |
| dt reduction | 10x | 100x | 1000x |
Script Outputs (JSON Fields)
| Script | Output Fields |
|---|---|
scripts/preflight_checker.py |
report.status, report.blockers, report.warnings |
scripts/runtime_monitor.py |
alerts, residual_stats, dt_stats (alerts include NaN/Inf/overflow detection, residual growth, and dt collapse) |
scripts/result_validator.py |
checks, confidence_score, failed_checks, status (PASS / FAIL / INSUFFICIENT_DATA); confidence_score is null when no check ran |
scripts/failure_diagnoser.py |
probable_causes, recommended_fixes |
What ships with it
14 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
- CHANGELOG.md 4.7 KB
- evals/evals.json 9.1 KB
- evals/files/config.json 116 B
- evals/files/crash.log 223 B
- evals/files/results.json 158 B
- evals/files/run.log 162 B
- evals/files/simulation.json 146 B
- evals/files/simulation.log 231 B
- references/log_patterns.md 7.4 KB
- references/validation_protocol.md 7.7 KB
- scripts/failure_diagnoser.py 3.1 KB runs code
- scripts/preflight_checker.py 9.4 KB runs code
- scripts/result_validator.py 7.9 KB runs code
- scripts/runtime_monitor.py 6.3 KB runs code
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 · 298 lines · 123 tokens per session scan A f866886694da
simulation-validator is a skill published in the GitHub repository HeshamFS/materials-simulation-skills (65 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 123 tokens to every session and 3,919 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
source-grounded-audit
Audit an answer or implementation against primary sources before recommending changes.
compositional-audit
Review a large question by staying inside one assigned slice, then support synthesis across several focused shard answers.
benchmark-critic
Evaluate benchmark design for fair baselines, measurable outcomes, leakage, cherry-picking, and reproducibility.
rigorous-review
Review code, docs, or plans for correctness risks, missing evidence, unclear tradeoffs, and untested assumptions.
release-readiness
Check whether a change is ready for a public release candidate across packaging, docs, tests, and rollback risk.
mcporter
List, auth, and call MCP servers/tools from the terminal.