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 itseffi/agentic-os --skill verificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/itseffi/agentic-osWrote 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/itseffi/agentic-os/verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/itseffi/agentic-os/verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/itseffi/agentic-os/verification/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/itseffi/agentic-os/verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/itseffi/agentic-os/verification.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00602 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00241 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
verification 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 — 93 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Before Completion
Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing.
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
The Gate Function
Before claiming any status or completion:
- IDENTIFY - What command proves this claim?
- RUN - Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
- READ - Full output, check exit code, count failures
- VERIFY - Does output confirm the claim?
- If NO: State actual status with evidence
- If YES: State claim WITH evidence
- ONLY THEN - Make the claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying.
What Requires Verification
| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check |
| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing |
| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed |
| Phase complete | All objectives verified | Tests passing |
| Task done | Checklist items verified | "I did everything" |
Red Flags - STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Done!")
- About to commit/push without verification
- Relying on partial verification
- ANY wording implying success without having run verification
Patterns
Tests:
OK: [Run test] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
BAD: "Should pass now"
Build:
OK: [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
BAD: "Linter passed" (linter != compiler)
Task completion:
OK: Re-read requirements -> checklist -> verify each -> report
BAD: "Tests pass, task complete"
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Should work now" | Run the verification |
| "I'm confident" | Confidence != evidence |
| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
What ships with it
1 file 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 · 93 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A a67e4caa7dba
verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository itseffi/agentic-os (117 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 602 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
workflow-patterns
Use this skill when implementing tasks according to Conductor's TDD workflow, handling phase checkpoints, managing git commits for tasks, or understanding the verification protocol.
writing-livekit-scenarios
Creates and maintains the scenarios a LiveKit agent simulation runs, and wires the agent to consume them. Use when the user asks "what should I test", "generate simulation scenarios", "write scenarios for my agent", "add a scenario for X", "organize my scenario files", "my simulations are flaky", "the scenario hits my…
running-livekit-simulations
Runs LiveKit agent simulations and acts on the results. Use when the user says "run my simulations", "regression test my agent before deploying", "run the scenarios", "use lk agent simulate", "did my agent pass", "why did this scenario fail", "run simulations in CI", "test the audio pipeline", "check turn-taking and…
designing-tests
Designs and implements testing strategies for any codebase. Use when adding tests, improving coverage, setting up testing infrastructure, debugging test failures, or when asked about unit tests, integration tests, or E2E testing.
webapp-qa
Perform scoped exploratory QA of a web application, reproduce defects, collect screenshots and console evidence, and deliver a prioritized report.
playwright-api
API testing skill using Playwright's built-in APIRequestContext for RESTful service validation, authentication flows, and API contract verification.