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 Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills --skill verify-donegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skillsWrote 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/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/verify-done)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/verify-done"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/verify-done/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/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/verify-done"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/verify-done.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 | $0.00057 | $0.02696 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.01348 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00539 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00270 |
Grade C, and why
verify-done scanned grade C with 1 finding 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.
Hidden instructionshighPrompt injection
Directives inside HTML comments, invisible characters or bidirectional overrides are read by the model and not by the person reviewing the file.
<!-- Converted from prose branch instruction: "Choose A or B based on task type" --> How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 268 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Protocol
STOP. You are NOT done yet. Generate this checklist and provide EVIDENCE for every item.
1. Task Type & Strategy
- Type: FIX / FEATURE / REFACTOR / DOCS / INVESTIGATION
- Strategy: Executable verification vs. Static verification?
[!IMPORTANT] When provided a process map or Mermaid diagram, treat it as the authoritative procedure. Execute steps in the exact order shown, including branches, decision points, and stop conditions. A Mermaid process diagram is an executable instruction set. Follow it exactly as written: respect sequence, conditions, loops, parallel paths, and terminal states. Do not improvise, reorder, or skip steps. If any node is ambiguous or missing required detail, pause and ask a clarifying question before continuing. When interacting with a user, report before acting the interpreted path you will follow from the diagram, then execute.
2. The "WORKS" Check
The following diagram is the authoritative procedure for WORKS Check — determining whether the task output is verified as working. Execute steps in the exact order shown, including branches, decision points, and stop conditions.
flowchart TD
Start(["Begin WORKS Check -- Section 2"]) --> Q{"Task type?"}
Q -->|"Executable code -- compiled, scripted, or CLI-run"| A1["Execution check<br>Terminal output showing successful run<br>(exit code 0 is NOT enough)"]
Q -->|"Static asset -- docs, configs, analysis"| B1["Accuracy check<br>Verified against source code or schema?"]
A1 --> A2["Real data check<br>Ran changed code path against real data<br>not just read the diff?"]
A2 --> A3["Regression check<br>Evidence that existing tests still pass?"]
A3 --> A4["Edge case check<br>Evidence of testing failure scenarios?"]
A4 --> AEvidence["Record code evidence<br>execution output, real data test,<br>test results, edge case result"]
B1 --> B2["Clarity check<br>Follows the established format?"]
B2 --> B3["Validity check<br>Links and references resolve?"]
B3 --> BEvidence["Record static evidence<br>accuracy check method,<br>format standard, link validation method"]
AEvidence --> Done(["WORKS Check complete -- proceed to Section 3"])
BEvidence --> Done
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 First seen · 268 lines · 57 tokens per session scan C c9dfa4386063
verify-done is a skill published in the GitHub repository Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills (66 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 2,696 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (hidden instructions). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-06.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing.
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.
experimental-code-coverage-local-debugger
Runs code coverage locally via Universal Test Runner (UTR) or helper scripts, mimicking LUCI trybots. Activate when CQ tryjobs fail or underreport coverage, to test local GN/recipe repairs before uploading, or to debug hermetic crashes.
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
cli-e2e
Write, modify, or debug Docker-based Composio CLI end-to-end tests under ts/e2e-tests/cli, including binary invocation, fixture isolation, output assertions, and package manifests. Use for CLI E2E test suites only; use cli-command for CLI source implementation.
work
Deliver one maintainer-approved EmDash issue, choosing the bug-fix path for a defect and the direct implementation path for an enhancement or task.