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 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00254 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo ago 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 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 636 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-10.
Other skills, from other repositories
tmux-real-user-testing
A real-user test workflow for Qwen Code's terminal interface, using tmux to drive the program and capture readable screen snapshots. tmux is a tool for running and observing terminal sessions.
e2e-testing
Guide for running end-to-end tests of the Qwen Code CLI, including headless mode, MCP server testing, and API traffic inspection. Use this skill whenever you need to verify CLI behavior with real model calls, reproduce user-reported bugs end-to-end, test MCP tool integrations, or inspect raw API request/response…
terminal-capture
Automates terminal UI screenshot testing for CLI commands. Applies when reviewing PRs that affect CLI output, testing slash commands (/about, /context, /auth, /export), generating visual documentation, or when 'terminal screenshot', 'CLI test', 'visual test', or 'terminal-capture' is mentioned.
agent-reproduce-align
Use after a Codex or Claude Code feature has been implemented in Qwen Code to run the selected reference agent and Qwen Code under the same scenario, capture HTTP and terminal traces, compare request bodies, tool/function schemas, outputs, and iterate until the reproduced behavior is close enough.
create-issue
Draft and submit a GitHub issue from a user idea or bug description, with bilingual body and correct labels.
test-failure-explorer
Import and query an existing Vitest 3.2 JSON report to explore test failures, file-level errors and original diagnostic evidence.