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/kopp0510/claude-dd/verification-gatenpx skills add kopp0510/claude-dd --skill verification-gategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kopp0510/claude-ddWrote 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/kopp0510/claude-dd/verification-gate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kopp0510/claude-dd/verification-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kopp0510/claude-dd/verification-gate.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 5.1 | $0.00066 | $0.00991 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00033 | $0.00495 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00198 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
verification-gate 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 2d 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.
What it actually says
Verification Gate — 完成前驗證閘門
借鑑 obra/superpowers 的 verification-before-completion 概念。
鐵律
執行命令 → 讀取輸出 → 然後才能宣稱結果。 沒有新鮮證據就不能宣稱完成。
「新鮮」= 本次工作中、最後一次修改之後實際執行並觀察到的結果。 「之前跑過」「應該可以」「改動很小」都不算。
驗證流程
-
識別驗證項目 — 依宣稱類型對照：
宣稱 必要驗證 測試通過 執行測試指令，讀完整輸出（通過/失敗/跳過數，不只看 exit code） 建置成功 執行 build，確認零錯誤、輸出檔案存在 bug 已修復 重現原始問題步驟，確認不再發生 功能已實作 端對端執行該功能（真實 API / 瀏覽器，同 8 步迴圈步驟 5） 沒有迴歸 執行完整相關測試套件，確認無新增失敗 lint / 型別正確 執行 linter / type checker，確認零錯誤 subagent 回報完成 讀 subagent 改的檔案 + 親自重跑它聲稱通過的驗證 -
執行並讀取 — 等命令完成，逐行讀輸出，記錄警告與異常
-
裁決 — 全過 → 附證據宣稱完成；任何失敗 → 停止、修復、從頭重驗
-
宣稱完成（附證據） — 報告格式：項目 / 命令 / 結果 / 證據摘要，逐列列出
修 bug 時的迴歸驗證模式：git stash && <測試>（看到失敗）→ git stash pop && <測試>（看到通過）。
紅旗 — 看到即停下補驗證
- 「應該」「大概」「我覺得」等不確定語氣出現在完成宣稱裡
- 宣稱完成但沒有貼出任何命令輸出
- 引用修改前的測試結果
- 「手動驗證過了」但沒說步驟
- 未經確認就採信 subagent 的回報
合理化防範
| 藉口 | 現實 |
|---|---|
| 「這只是重構，不影響行為」 | 重構是最常引入 bug 的操作之一 |
| 「型別系統已經保證了」 | 型別不能保證運行時行為 |
| 「改動太小」 | 小改動也能破壞系統 |
| 「我很確定」 | 確定程度不能替代證據 |
| 「時間不夠 / 測試太慢」 | debug 花的時間更多；至少跑相關子集 |
| 「本地跑得好好的」 | 環境差異存在，CI 也要過 |
與原生 /goal 的關係
互補：/goal（Claude Code ≥ 2.1.139）負責「要不要再跑一輪」；本閘門負責「這一輪能不能
說完成」。用 /goal 自主收斂時，鐵律仍適用於每一輪 — 評估器讀到的「完成」必須是
執行命令、讀取輸出後的結果。
不適用
純討論/設計（沒有完成宣稱）、文件撰寫、探索性調查。
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.
- 2d ago Changed 79fa244cbec8
- 6d ago First seen · 66 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A ba1114212fa4
verification-gate is a skill published in the GitHub repository kopp0510/claude-dd (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 991 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
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
security-review
Perform a focused security review of pending git changes to identify high-confidence security vulnerabilities with real exploitation potential. Use this skill when the user asks for a security review, security audit, vulnerability scan, or wants to check pending changes on a branch for security issues before merging.…
huggingface-llm-trainer
Train or fine-tune language models with TRL or Unsloth on Hugging Face Jobs, including SFT, DPO, GRPO, reward models, and GGUF conversion. Use for cloud LLM training; use huggingface-vision-trainer for vision tasks.
reply-to-pr-threads
Draft, confirm, and post replies to GitHub PR review threads. Handles per-category reply formatting, re-fetches thread resolution state so auto-resolved threads are skipped, and posts via GraphQL. Use when the user asks to "reply to PR threads", "post PR thread replies", or "draft PR reply messages".
review
Validate plans, execution, or PRs against wish criteria — returns SHIP / FIX-FIRST / BLOCKED with severity-tagged gaps.
answer-reviewer-questions
For each reviewer question on a PR, recall implementation reasoning and compose a raw answer. Use when the user asks to "answer reviewer questions", "draft answers to PR questions", or "explain reviewer questions".