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 agentmods add skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/verify-completionnpx skills add KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude --skill verify-completiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KhaledSaeed18/dotclaudeWrote 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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/verify-completion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/verify-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/verify-completion.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00069 | $0.00708 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00354 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
verify-completion 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 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.
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 — 52 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Don't claim work is done, fixed, or passing unless you've just run the thing that proves it and read the output. Saying it's complete when you haven't checked isn't optimism — it's reporting something you don't know to be true, and it breaks trust the moment it turns out wrong.
The one rule
No completion claim without fresh verification. If you haven't run the verifying command in this turn, you can't say it passes. "Should pass now", "I'm confident", "the logs looked fine" are not evidence — they're the feelings that precede unverified claims.
The gate
Before stating any status, or even expressing satisfaction ("great", "perfect", "done"):
- Identify the command that would prove the claim.
- Run it — the full command, fresh, start to finish. Not a partial check, not a remembered result from earlier.
- Read the whole output: exit code, failure count, warnings.
- Decide. Does the output actually confirm the claim? If not, state the real status with the evidence. If so, state the claim with the evidence.
Skipping any of these steps turns a verification into a guess.
What each claim actually requires
| Claim | What proves it | What does not |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | A fresh test run showing 0 failures | A previous run; "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output, 0 errors | A partial check; extrapolating |
| Build succeeds | Build command, exit 0 | Linter passing; logs "looking good" |
| Bug fixed | The original symptom retested and gone | The code changed, so it's "probably fixed" |
| Regression test works | Watched it fail before the fix, pass after | It passes once now |
| Requirements met | A line-by-line pass over the requirements | Tests passing |
| Subagent finished | The actual diff / output inspected | The subagent reporting "success" |
A linter passing doesn't mean it compiles. A subagent saying "done" doesn't mean it did the work — check the diff. A regression test that's only ever passed hasn't been shown to catch anything; verify it fails without the fix, then passes with it.
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 · 52 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A 8d13ddee80c3
verify-completion is a skill published in the GitHub repository KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 708 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
src
use when generating a doc the user will read and share — specs, roadmaps, pr explainers, research reports, plans, strategy docs. trigger words: "glyph," "spec," "roadmap," "explainer," "report," "plan," "save as a doc.".
opencli-sitemap-author
Use when creating or maintaining OpenCLI site sitemaps: agent-facing navigation, page-state, action, workflow, API-reference, pitfall, and fallback knowledge for a website. Use after browser exploration discovers durable site context, when a sitemap is stale, or when promoting local site knowledge into the repo.
golden-rss
Use when testing the rss golden build.
overleaf-sync
Two-way sync between a local paper directory and an Overleaf project, so ARIS audit/edit workflows stay on the local copy while collaborators edit in the Overleaf web UI. Use when user says "同步 overleaf", "overleaf sync", "推送到 overleaf", "connect overleaf", "Overleaf 桥接", "pull overleaf", "push overleaf", or wants to…
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
android-pentest
安卓应用渗透测试 — APK分析、Hook、自动化测试、运行态驱动、签名恢复、抓包分析.