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 lgbarn/shipyard --skill shipyard-verificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lgbarn/shipyardWrote 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/lgbarn/shipyard/shipyard-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lgbarn/shipyard/shipyard-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lgbarn/shipyard/shipyard-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/lgbarn/shipyard/shipyard-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lgbarn/shipyard/shipyard-verification.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 3 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Prompt Injection · line 6 Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Audit all comments and invisible characters. Remove any instructions that direct the agent to perform unauthorized actions. Use plain, reviewable content.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 25 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 87 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00073 | $0.01290 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00516 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00258 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00129 |
Grade A, and why
shipyard-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 12d 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 — 183 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Before Completion
Activation Triggers
- About to claim work is "done", "complete", "fixed", or "passing"
- About to commit, create a PR, or merge
- Before any success assertion -- must have fresh evidence first
- Using words like "should", "probably", "seems to" about work state
Natural Language Triggers
- "is this done", "verify this", "check my work", "are we done", "does this work"
Overview
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, 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.
The Gate Function
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 = lying, not verifying
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 |
Teammate Mode
When SHIPYARD_IS_TEAMMATE=true:
- Run verification locally and report results via task metadata (not STATE.json updates)
- Do not update STATE.json — only the lead agent writes project state
- TaskCompleted hook enforces evidence — the hook checks for verification artifacts before allowing task completion
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.
- 12d ago Changed · -6 tokens per session 1ab9bdd70565
- 1mo ago First seen · 183 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A 85784d9de0f8
shipyard-verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository lgbarn/shipyard (65 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 1,290 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
refactor
Refactor existing code by extracting helpers, splitting files, removing duplication, or untangling dependencies. Supports resumable and batch runs. Use for structural changes that preserve behavior; use zuvo:build for new features.
coverage-check
Run the repo's unit tests with coverage and verify that every file touched in the current change keeps line, branch, and function coverage at or above 95%. Language- and framework-agnostic. Use before committing, before PR creation, or when the user asks about coverage.
merger
Multi-issue integration and merge skill - handles post-QA integration of completed worktrees.
commit
A Git workflow skill that completes a TDD cycle by committing changes after required review, tests, logs, and retrospective checks pass. Git is a version-control system that records code changes and commits.
deep-implement
Implements code from /deep-plan section files with TDD methodology, code review, and git workflow. Use when implementing plans created by /deep-plan.
wrap-up-branch
Finish a feature branch: add missing tests, review and fix the code, align docs, then merge only after explicit confirmation.