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 ijust/intent-planner --skill intent-verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ijust/intent-plannerWrote 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/ijust/intent-planner/intent-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ijust/intent-planner/intent-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ijust/intent-planner/intent-verify/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/ijust/intent-planner/intent-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ijust/intent-planner/intent-verify.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 | $0.00033 | $0.00636 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00318 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
intent-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 today.
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 — 37 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
intent-verify Skill
Core Mission
Compare currently applicable requirements with implementation, check contents, and actual results across a product or a requested change scope. Include completed features and report verified, unmet, and unverified requirements with evidence. Connect existing checks and execution tools; do not build a separate verification platform.
Execution Steps
Step 1: Establish the target and scope
Read the shared contract. If present, read “Assignment selection and continuation” in .intent/execution-contract.md and establish the verification target from the conversation. Never infer your assignment from the newest packet or create or change assignment records.
Use the whole product for a requested full, initial, or milestone verification. For change-focused re-verification, select affected consumers as well as changed parts using previous results and the change scope. Clarify an ambiguous comparison baseline or target. Without previous results, start with an initial whole-product review. Briefly state the scope and rationale.
Step 2: Requirements, evidence, and change impact
Read rules/verification.md and select current requirements and reusable evidence. Keep unreadable sources and unknown impact unverified. In a focused run, requirements not selected are neither successful nor approved exclusions.
Step 3: Execute permissible checks
Follow that rule's execution boundary to select existing checks and obtain actual results for those permissible to run. Distinguish reading evidence from executing checks; do not change code or tests to repair a failed check.
Step 4: Save and report
Follow rules/report.md to save a report separating fresh and reused evidence under .intent/verification/. If saving is unavailable, report in the conversation and explicitly state that it was not saved. Stop at reporting findings; do not automatically begin implementation, specification changes, writeback, or another tool's workflow.
What ships with it
2 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.
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.
- today First seen · 37 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A cf487dea09cc
intent-verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository ijust/intent-planner (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 636 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-10.
Other skills, from other repositories
done
Close an increment: ledger check, specweave verify, optional review, then specweave complete. Use when all tasks are done and saying "close increment", "we are done", or "finish up".
ring:implementing-tasks
Implementing a single planned task (Task N.M.T) end-to-end: selects the right backend agent by language and service type, drives one TDD RED->GREEN turn, then verifies coverage, lint, license headers, runtime, and delivery before handoff. Runs as Gate 0 before ring:reviewing-code. Use to drive ONE task inside an…
ring:validating-acceptance-criteria
Validating a completed task against its acceptance criteria, mapping each AC to evidence, and gating completion on explicit user sign-off (self-approval prohibited). Gate 5 of ring:running-dev-cycle / ring:running-dev-cycle-frontend, run at task cadence after ring:reviewing-code. Use when implementation and tests are…
atomic-tdd
Test-first discipline. Auto-triggers on "let's implement X", "add feature Y", "fix bug Z", "write a test for", "implement", "build out", and similar pre-code-change phrases. Iron rule: failing test exists before production code. Skip only for pure docs/config changes with an explicit "skipped because:" note. Explicit…
{{BUCKET}}-management
Skill "{{BUCKET}}-management" from damusix/atomic-claude, covering purpose, doc shape and frontmatter contract.
writing-skills
Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment. Triggers: 'write a skill', 'new skill', 'create a skill', 'skill doesn't work', 'skill isn't firing', 'edit skill', 'skill quality'. NOT for: general prompt improvement (use instruction-engineering) or command creation…