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 Jarroslav/agentic-os --skill acceptance-checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Jarroslav/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/jarroslav/agentic-os/acceptance-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jarroslav/agentic-os/acceptance-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jarroslav/agentic-os/acceptance-check/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/jarroslav/agentic-os/acceptance-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jarroslav/agentic-os/acceptance-check.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 | $0.00100 | $0.02171 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00040 | $0.00868 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00434 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00217 |
Grade A, and why
acceptance-check 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 2mo 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 — 216 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
acceptance-check
gate-runner answers one question: did the configured lint/build/test scripts
exit clean. That is a claim about the code, not about the product. A test
suite can be green while the button a user actually clicks does nothing,
because nothing in the suite ever opened a browser and clicked it. This skill
is the second, independent claim — "a real session drove the changed surface
and it behaved" — and it refuses to let the first claim stand in for the
second.
Inputs
| Input | Source |
|---|---|
gate_plan |
<run_dir>/gate-plan.json, written by gate-runner |
qa_report |
<run_dir>/qa-report.md, written by gate-runner |
branch |
current feature branch |
merge_base |
defaults to origin/main |
repo_path |
absolute path to the checkout |
run_dir |
absolute path to the run's state directory |
Step A — Decide whether this run even applies
Diff <merge_base>...HEAD by name only. A user-visible surface changed if any
touched path matches gate_plan.ui_globs, looks like a new entry point
(*.html, index.tsx, index.jsx, App.tsx, anything under pages/,
app/, or routes/), or is a manifest edit that changes what ships to the
client (e.g. a new export added to a UI library's package.json).
No match anywhere in the diff → this skill is a no-op for the run. Write
verification-evidence.json as {"applies": false, "reason": "no user-visible surface in diff"}, return {"required": false, "verified": true}, and stop. A match sends you to Step B.
Step B — Pick the browser tool
Check the host project for these signals, in order, and stop at the first hit:
- A Playwright config file, or
@playwright/testinpackage.json→playwright. - A Cypress config file, or
cypressinpackage.json→cypress. - A configured Storybook interaction test runner →
storybook-test. feature_verification.commandset in.agentic/agentic-sdlc/config.json→custom, using that command verbatim.- None of the above →
unconfigured.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 216 lines · 100 tokens per session scan A 3612db4376a6
acceptance-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository Jarroslav/agentic-os (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 100 tokens to every session and 2,171 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
browse
Drive a real browser through Aside: open a page, read it, click through a flow, take screenshots, check console errors. (gstack).
cua-driver
Use Cua Driver for desktop or browser tasks that are awkward or unavailable through Bash/APIs, or when the user explicitly wants GUI interaction: app testing, visual bug reproduction, form filling, calendar entry, screenshots, and demo recording. Also covers Cua setup; not OpenAI Codex Computer Use or web research.
create-verification-skill
Create a repo-local verification skill and exhaustive feature map for driving a real app through its UI, CLI, or API. Use for "create a verification skill", "make a verify skill for this repo", or "document how agents can verify this app".
browser-qa
A browser-based quality check for deployed web pages and user flows. It uses browser automation to test rendering, navigation, forms, interactions, responsive behaviour, and accessibility-related issues.
webapp-testing
Toolkit for interacting with and testing local web applications using Playwright. Supports verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, and viewing browser logs.
test-electron-app
Drive the real running PostHog Electron app (live tRPC, workspace-server, real data) over CDP with agent-browser. Connect to the running app on port 9222, test desktop changes against a local Django stack, snapshot the accessibility tree, inspect network requests, and screenshot only when explicitly asked. Use when…