Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ilang-ai/autocodenpx agentmods add skills/ilang-ai/autocode/verifyWrote 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/ilang-ai/autocode/verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ilang-ai/autocode/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ilang-ai/autocode/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/ilang-ai/autocode/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ilang-ai/autocode/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 | $0.00000 | $0.00823 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00329 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00165 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
What it actually says
verify — S5: show the table, never say "tests passed"
[PROTOCOL:iLang|v=5.0|layer=declaration]
::PRIOR{dimension:completion|default:assume_incomplete|authority:system|scope:@JOURNEY} ::PRIOR{dimension:completion|default:not_live_until_url_opened_and_acceptance_rerun|authority:system|scope:@JOURNEY}
::GENE{verify|conf:confirmed|scope:global} T:check_after_every_feature|silently|fix_minor_things_without_saying T:run_tests_if_a_framework_exists|never_claim_a_run_that_did_not_happen T:full_review_before_save_and_deploy|every_file|logic|edges|security|hardcoded_values T:acceptance_runner_is_a_fixed_build_output|tool:product-study/scripts/acceptance_run.py T:checks_file_next_to_the_build|acceptance.js|acceptance.py|one_json_row_per_check T:table=check|expected|actual|match|readable_by_a_non_technical_person T:user_checks_listed_as_actions_to_perform|not_as_tests_passed T:fix_then_rerun_until_all_match|before_ship T:rerun_on_the_live_url_after_ship T:human_readable_commit_messages A:report_tests_passed⇒show_expected_vs_actual A:claim_tests_passed_without_running⇒reject A:announce_that_you_are_checking⇒silent A:say_tests_failed_to_the_user⇒fix_first_then_report A:partial_review⇒full_review A:skip_review_on_save⇒never A:no_headless_browser⇒rules_block_checks_in_node_or_python
::ACTIVATE{verify} ON:feature_complete ON:before_save ON:before_deploy ON:S4-build.step_complete ON:S6-ship.url_live ON:session_end
::STATE{@ACCEPT, the acceptance table}
[TEST:@ACCEPT|src=@LOCAL]=>[CHEK:@ACCEPT|whr=all_match]=>[Ω:@USER|fmt=text|typ=table]
::EVIDENCE{id:v1|deliverable:site|kind:test_output|ref:acceptance_table_local|verified_by:@TOOL|result:all_match} ::EVIDENCE{id:v2|deliverable:site|kind:test_output|ref:acceptance_table_live|verified_by:@TOOL|result:all_match} ::STATUS{@MVP|state:claimed_complete|evidence:v1|by:@AGENT|authority:proposal} ::STATUS{@MVP|state:verified|evidence:v2|by:@TOOL|authority:runtime}
python3 skills/product-study/scripts/acceptance_run.py <site_dir> # local build
python3 skills/product-study/scripts/acceptance_run.py <site_dir> --url <live> # after ship
::SAY{@AUTOCODE→@USER}{ table: "5 自动加速 10000 次更新后速度 13.001 13.001 ✓ 一致 … 8/8 一致" to_user: "机器能查的 8 项全部一致。剩下请你亲手点：开始、空格跳、拖滑块、撞了重开。" }
Powered by iLang v5.0 | ilang.ai
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 Changed 38e5998b7eb2
- 5d ago First seen · 61 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 88441d1c0054
verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository ilang-ai/autocode (104 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 823 tokens. 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 2026-10-15.
Other skills, from other repositories
qa-test-planner
Generate comprehensive test plans, manual test cases, regression test suites, and bug reports for QA engineers. Includes Figma MCP integration for design validation.
langsmith-observability
LLM observability platform for tracing, evaluation, and monitoring. Use when debugging LLM applications, evaluating model outputs against datasets, monitoring production systems, or building systematic testing pipelines for AI applications.
research-engineer
An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.
agent-evaluation
Testing and benchmarking LLM agents including behavioral testing, capability assessment, reliability metrics, and production monitoring—where even top agents achieve less than 50% on real-world benchmarks Use when: agent testing, agent evaluation, benchmark agents, agent reliability, test agent.
tdd
Build this test-first, one behavior at a time: $ARGUMENTS.
mckinsey-consultant
A consulting style method for breaking business questions into structured analyses and producing research reports or presentations.