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 skills add HITMANdark07/neatcodeai --skill verifyinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HITMANdark07/neatcodeaiWrote 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/hitmandark07/neatcodeai/verifying)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hitmandark07/neatcodeai/verifying"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hitmandark07/neatcodeai/verifying/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/hitmandark07/neatcodeai/verifying"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hitmandark07/neatcodeai/verifying.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 | $0.00041 | $0.01451 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00580 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00290 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00145 |
Grade A, and why
verifying 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 1mo 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 — 168 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Before Completion
Overview
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.
Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.
This skill calls the validate_diff MCP tool as part of the completion gate. Tests passing is necessary but not sufficient — the change must also clear the repo's captured rules.
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE FROM BOTH GATES
If you haven't run BOTH (a) the test command AND (b) validate_diff in this message, you cannot claim the change is done.
The Two Gates
A change is complete only when both of the following return clean in this turn:
Gate (a): Tests pass
- Run the project's test command for the affected files (or the whole suite if scope is unclear)
- Confirm exit code 0, zero failing assertions, no warnings beyond the project baseline
Gate (b): validate_diff returns clean
- Call the
validate_diffMCP tool withchanges: [{file, new_content}, ...]for every file you intend to claim is done - Confirm
violationsis the empty array - If violations come back, DO NOT claim done. Hand off to the
validating-diffskill to resolve them via the four-option UX (exception_once,exception_until,supersede,abort).
Both gates run on the SAME change set in the SAME turn. Tests passing yesterday plus a clean validate_diff from earlier today is not sufficient — the world may have moved.
The Gate Function
BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
1. IDENTIFY: What command proves gate (a)? What changes are passed to gate (b)?
2. RUN GATE (a): Execute the FULL test command (fresh, complete)
3. RUN GATE (b): Call validate_diff with the change set
4. READ: Full output of both, check exit code, count test failures, inspect violations array
5. VERIFY: Do both outputs confirm the claim?
- If EITHER fails: state actual status with evidence; do not claim done
- If BOTH pass: state claim WITH evidence (test summary + "validate_diff: clean")
6. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 168 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 6e20545b453f
verifying is a skill published in the GitHub repository HITMANdark07/neatcodeai (0 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 1,451 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…