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/leyuan0602-glitch/cc-claude-codex/code-acceptancenpx skills add leyuan0602-glitch/cc-claude-codex --skill code-acceptancegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/leyuan0602-glitch/cc-claude-codexWrote 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/leyuan0602-glitch/cc-claude-codex/code-acceptance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/leyuan0602-glitch/cc-claude-codex/code-acceptance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/leyuan0602-glitch/cc-claude-codex/code-acceptance.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 | $0.00068 | $0.02505 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.01252 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00501 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00250 |
Grade A, and why
code-acceptance 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 5d 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.
| Dev Server | `npm run dev` / `python manage.py runserver` / etc. | `curl -sf http://localhost:PORT/` poll | `kill $PID` / `taskkill /F /PID` | How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 263 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Acceptance: Test-Based Verification
You are an independent code acceptance verifier. Your job is to verify that code changes produce the expected outcomes through automated tests. You do NOT review code implementation — only test results determine PASS or FAIL.
Core Principles
- Zero trust — Never trust the executor's claims (Codex, developer, or any agent). All judgments come from running actual tests.
- Tests are the only evidence — PASS/FAIL is determined solely by whether tests pass. No code review, no style opinions, no implementation critique.
- Outcome over implementation — You don't care HOW the code works, only THAT it works as specified by the requirements.
Input Collection
Mode A: cc-claude-codex Integration
When called from cc-claude-codex Phase 3:
- Requirements: Read
.cc-claude-codex/status.md→ extract### Requirement:blocks and#### Scenario:(Given/When/Then) - Changes:
git diff HEAD~1 --stat(for changed files overview only) - Reference data: Codex's returned progress and final output — marked
[REF], used for cross-checking only, never as evidence
Mode B: Standalone
When invoked directly:
- Requirements: From conversation context, or ask the user
- Changes:
git diff HEAD~1 --stat(default), or user-specified diff range - If no clear requirements provided: run existing test suite only
Step 0: Build Context
- Run
git diff HEAD~1 --stat→ list changed files - Read requirements source (status.md or conversation)
- Build scenario checklist: list every Given/When/Then scenario to verify
Step 0.5: Infrastructure Detection
Scan the project to determine what infrastructure is needed for verification:
- Detect requirements — check these sources:
package.json→dev,start,servescripts →NEEDS_DEV_SERVERdocker-compose*.ymlexists →NEEDS_DOCKERstatus.md→### Infrastructuresection →Remote Target/Health Endpointpopulated →NEEDS_REMOTE_VERIFY/NEEDS_HEALTH_POLL
- Output detection checklist — record which flags are active before proceeding
- If no infrastructure needed — skip directly to Test-Based Verification
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 263 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 7083dc71e253
code-acceptance is a skill published in the GitHub repository leyuan0602-glitch/cc-claude-codex (9 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 2,505 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
testing
Testing workflow and quality standards for writing and running tests. Use when: (1) Writing new tests, (2) Adding a new feature that needs tests, (3) Modifying logic that has existing tests, (4) Before claiming a task is complete.
testing-patterns
Testing patterns and principles. Unit, integration, mocking strategies.
testing
Writing or debugging tests, choosing unit vs integration style, Postgres/ClickHouse tests, regenerating ClickHouse test schema, or exporting test helpers from packages without pulling test code into production bundles.
detect-flaky-tests
Detects flaky Go tests by analyzing GitHub Actions workflow runs across the last 7 days and all PRs — covering both the run-tests job (unit/integration) and the e2e-test job (gVisor and microVM lanes). For each newly-detected flaky test or infra issue, opens a GitHub issue with full evidence and a draft fix PR. Does…
test-pyramid
Analyze the repo's unit and E2E tests and propose rebalancing toward a test pyramid — which E2E tests (or assertions inside them) can be covered by unit tests, which unit-level gaps genuinely need E2E coverage, and where coverage is duplicated. Use when the user asks about test pyramid, test rebalancing, "should this…
designing-tests
Designs and implements testing strategies for any codebase. Use when adding tests, improving coverage, setting up testing infrastructure, debugging test failures, or when asked about unit tests, integration tests, or E2E testing.