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 joneqian/claude-skills-suite --skill verification-loopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/joneqian/claude-skills-suiteWrote 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/joneqian/claude-skills-suite/verification-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/joneqian/claude-skills-suite/verification-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joneqian/claude-skills-suite/verification-loop/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/joneqian/claude-skills-suite/verification-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joneqian/claude-skills-suite/verification-loop.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 | $0.00659 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00264 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00132 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
verification-loop 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.
This is a copy
88% identical to verification-loop — 6 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 121 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Loop Skill
A comprehensive verification system for Claude Code sessions.
When to Use
Invoke this skill:
- After completing a feature or significant code change
- Before creating a PR
- When you want to ensure quality gates pass
- After refactoring
Verification Phases
Phase 1: Build Verification
# Check if project builds
npm run build 2>&1 | tail -20
# OR
pnpm build 2>&1 | tail -20
If build fails, STOP and fix before continuing.
Phase 2: Type Check
# TypeScript projects
npx tsc --noEmit 2>&1 | head -30
# Python projects
pyright . 2>&1 | head -30
Report all type errors. Fix critical ones before continuing.
Phase 3: Lint Check
# JavaScript/TypeScript
npm run lint 2>&1 | head -30
# Python
ruff check . 2>&1 | head -30
Phase 4: Test Suite
# Run tests with coverage
npm run test -- --coverage 2>&1 | tail -50
# Check coverage threshold
# Target: 80% minimum
Report:
- Total tests: X
- Passed: X
- Failed: X
- Coverage: X%
Phase 5: Security Scan
# Check for secrets
grep -rn "sk-" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" . 2>/dev/null | head -10
grep -rn "api_key" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" . 2>/dev/null | head -10
# Check for console.log
grep -rn "console.log" --include="*.ts" --include="*.tsx" src/ 2>/dev/null | head -10
Phase 6: Diff Review
# Show what changed
git diff --stat
git diff HEAD~1 --name-only
Review each changed file for:
- Unintended changes
- Missing error handling
- Potential edge cases
Output Format
After running all phases, produce a verification report:
VERIFICATION REPORT
==================
Build: [PASS/FAIL]
Types: [PASS/FAIL] (X errors)
Lint: [PASS/FAIL] (X warnings)
Tests: [PASS/FAIL] (X/Y passed, Z% coverage)
Security: [PASS/FAIL] (X issues)
Diff: [X files changed]
Overall: [READY/NOT READY] for PR
Issues to Fix:
1. ...
2. ...
Continuous Mode
For long sessions, run verification every 15 minutes or after major changes:
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 · 121 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 850ae034c334
verification-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository joneqian/claude-skills-suite (32 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 659 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to verification-loop, differing in 6 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…