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 kucherenko/gangsta --skill sweep-verificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kucherenko/gangstaWrote 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/kucherenko/gangsta/sweep-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kucherenko/gangsta/sweep-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kucherenko/gangsta/sweep-verification/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/kucherenko/gangsta/sweep-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kucherenko/gangsta/sweep-verification.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 | $0.00033 | $0.00887 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00443 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00177 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
sweep-verification 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 10d 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
91% identical to verification-before-completion — 26 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 — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
The Sweep: Verification Before Completion
Overview
Claiming work is complete without verification is invalid, not efficiency.
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.
Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes. This is Omerta Law 3 — the Rule of Truth.
The Gate
BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
- If NO: State actual status with evidence
- If YES: State claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
Skip any step = invalid, not verification
Common Failures
| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
Red Flags — STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
- About to commit/push/PR without verification
- Trusting agent success reports
- Relying on partial verification
- Thinking "just this once"
- ANY wording implying success without having run verification
Rationalization Prevention
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 125 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 16301fb92624
sweep-verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository kucherenko/gangsta (81 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 887 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to verification-before-completion, differing in 26 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review
Enter the Review phase of CocoBrew. Aggregates findings from Code Quality Advisor, CocoCupper intelligence, spec compliance check, and decision coverage gate. Produces review.md with decision points. Requires developer approval before $ship can proceed.
meter-compare
Compare CocoMeter accuracy and cost results with correctness-first ordering. Usage: $meter compare .
test
Enter the Test phase of CocoBrew. Reads spec.md test requirements, generates test cases, executes SQL validation and quality checks, records results in test.md. Can be re-run without full rebuild. Requires Build phase completion.
contract
Outcome-driven Cortex function development — declares a behavioral contract before generation begins, enforces evidence-tiered proof before $ship, and defends against the self-oracle evaluation failure mode.
meter-benchmark
Measure per-stage success probability before iterating on CocoFlow templates. Supports $meter benchmark --flow .
verification-contract
Internal contract: one compact frozen ACCEPTANCE.md per delivery unit, its validation ladder, anti-weakening rules, and blob-bound execution receipt. Consumed by planners, execute-phase, and review-change.