Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to kaistenberg/MCP-Linkedin. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kaistenberg/MCP-Linkedin/main/.agents/skills/3-verify-pr-fix/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kaistenberg/MCP-LinkedinWrote 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/kaistenberg/mcp-linkedin/3-verify-pr-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kaistenberg/mcp-linkedin/3-verify-pr-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kaistenberg/mcp-linkedin/3-verify-pr-fix/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/kaistenberg/mcp-linkedin/3-verify-pr-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kaistenberg/mcp-linkedin/3-verify-pr-fix.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 | $0.00077 | $0.03409 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.01705 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00682 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00341 |
Grade A, and why
3-verify-pr-fix scanned grade A with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
curl -s -D /tmp/verify-pr-$PR-headers -X POST http://127.0.0.1:$PORT/mcp \ This is a copy
100% identical to 3-verify-pr-fix — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 201 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify a Candidate PR Actually Fixes the Issue
Goal: take a PR number, check it out cleanly, re-run the same tool call that failed on main, compare the outputs, and produce a verdict — "fixes", "fixes but with concerns", "does not fix", or "cannot run". Pair with /2-repro-issue (which produces the baseline). No edits, no merges, no pushes.
Phase 1 — Resolve the PR and its linked issue
# Accept "498", "#498", or "https://github.com/.../pull/498" — extract the digits only
PR=$(echo "$ARGUMENTS" | sed -E 's|.*/||; s|#||g' | grep -oE '^[0-9]+' | head -1)
[ -z "$PR" ] && { echo "Invalid input: '$ARGUMENTS'. Pass a PR number or URL." >&2; exit 1; }
REPO=stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server
gh pr view $PR --repo $REPO --json title,body,baseRefName,headRefName,headRepositoryOwner,mergeable,mergeStateStatus,additions,deletions,changedFiles,maintainerCanModify,statusCheckRollup
Extract the linked issue number from the PR body (Closes #, Fixes #, Resolves #, or plain #N). Call it ISSUE. If multiple, ask the user which one is the verification target.
Phase 2 — Pick up the baseline + request metadata
/2-repro-issue writes two files for each issue:
/tmp/repro-issue-<ISSUE>-main.json— the on-main response baseline/tmp/repro-issue-<ISSUE>-meta.json— the{tool, arguments}used to call it
Both must exist. The meta file is how this skill replays the exact same call instead of guessing tool and args from the response body.
ls -la /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-main.json /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-meta.json 2>&1
# Both files must exist AND be non-empty. ls alone never fails the script, so
# guard each path before we touch the PR branch or LinkedIn.
[ -s /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-main.json ] || { echo "Missing or empty response baseline. Re-run /2-repro-issue $ISSUE." >&2; exit 1; }
[ -s /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-meta.json ] || { echo "Missing or empty meta file. Re-run /2-repro-issue $ISSUE." >&2; exit 1; }
TOOL=$(jq -r .tool /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-meta.json)
ARGS_JSON=$(jq -c .arguments /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-meta.json)
echo "Replaying: $TOOL($ARGS_JSON)"
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 201 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 156cac8c102f
3-verify-pr-fix is a skill published in the GitHub repository kaistenberg/MCP-Linkedin (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 3,409 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). It is 100% identical to 3-verify-pr-fix, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
engram-branch-pr
PR creation workflow for Engram following the issue-first enforcement system. Trigger: When creating a pull request, opening a PR, or preparing changes for review.
verify-behavior
Verify or reproduce visible product behavior by driving the real UI with pi-computer-use's checked tools, requiring verified expect postconditions and durable state evidence for meaningful UI flows. Use when triage needs visual reproduction, implementation needs behavioral proof, review needs interactive confirmation…
github-contributor
End-to-end playbook for shipping high-quality pull requests to open-source projects you don't maintain — discovery, CONTRIBUTING compliance, PR-size check, minimal-diff implementation, PR description with AI-assisted disclosure, conflict resolution, and post-submission maintainer interaction. Use whenever creating…
revdiff
Review diffs, files, and documents with inline annotations in a TUI overlay, or answer questions about revdiff usage, configuration, themes, and keybindings. Opens revdiff in agterm/tmux/zellij/herdr/kitty/wezterm/cmux/ghostty/iterm2/emacs-vterm, captures annotations, and addresses them. Works in git, hg, and jj repos…
write-pr
Reference standards for writing pull request titles and descriptions in the tldraw repository, plus the pre-flight comment sweep over the diff. Use as supporting guidance when another skill or workflow needs PR content standards, not as the user-facing create/update PR workflow.