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/madappgang/claude-code/enforcementnpx skills add MadAppGang/claude-code --skill enforcementgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MadAppGang/claude-codeWrote 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/madappgang/claude-code/enforcement)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/madappgang/claude-code/enforcement"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/madappgang/claude-code/enforcement.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 | $0.00050 | $0.03335 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.01667 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00667 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00333 |
Grade A, and why
phase-enforcement 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 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
2. Check if dev server is running: curl http://localhost:3000 How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 505 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Phase Completion Enforcement
Version: 1.0.0 Purpose: Mechanical enforcement of phase completion requirements for /dev:feature Status: Production Ready
Overview
This skill provides mechanical enforcement (not just prompt-based instructions) for the 8-phase feature development workflow. It prevents:
- Claiming completion without proof - Artifacts must exist
- Skipping documentation - Required files per phase
- Ignoring validation criteria - Phase 1 criteria must map to Phase 7 results
- Bypassing retry logic - Outer loop enforced with state tracking
- Shipping without tests - Phase 6 requires test files
- Faking completion when blocked - Graceful degradation with honest status
- Hiding actual results - Show-your-work requirement
- Missing automated checks - Checkpoint verification at boundaries
Enforcement Components
1. Phase Completion Validator
Script: scripts/phase-completion-validator.js
How it works:
- Runs as PreToolUse hook on TaskUpdate
- Detects phase from task subject (e.g., "Phase 3: Planning")
- Checks required artifacts exist for that phase
- Blocks completion if artifacts missing or empty
Required Artifacts per Phase:
| Phase | Required Artifacts | Custom Checks |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | requirements.md, validation-criteria.md, iteration-config.json | Config has required fields |
| 3 | architecture.md | Plan reviews exist |
| 4 | implementation-log.md | Git changes detected |
| 5 | reviews/code-review/consolidated.md | Has PASS/FAIL verdict |
| 6 | tests/test-plan.md | Test files created |
| 7 | validation/result.md | Has PASS/FAIL status + evidence |
| 8 | report.md | Phase 7 PASSED |
Usage in orchestrator:
Before marking any phase complete:
1. Run checkpoint verification:
```bash
${PLUGIN_PATH}/scripts/checkpoint-verifier.sh phase{N} ${SESSION_PATH}
-
If check passes, mark task complete:
TaskUpdate(taskId: X, status: "completed") -
If check fails, DO NOT mark complete. Fix missing artifacts first.
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 First seen · 505 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 83bd85df8e3b
phase-enforcement is a skill published in the GitHub repository MadAppGang/claude-code (279 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 3,335 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
mpm-circuit-breaker-enforcement
Complete circuit breaker enforcement patterns with examples and remediation.
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.
fable-thinking
Reasoning protocol distilled from Claude Fable 5.1. Makes any model reason like Fable — evidence-grounded claims, multi-hypothesis diagnosis, concrete simulation, adversarial self-review, calibrated outcome-first delivery. Its never-skipped Floor check catches simple-looking trick questions models answer confidently…
scheduler-validation
Scheduler validator driven by ValidationHook — read-only static verification of scheduled jobs (schedule correctness, configuration, runtime context already collected by deterministic hook). Does not trigger test runs.
evidence-calibration-review
Use when you want a per-claim evidence-tier audit on a text artifact before it ships — assign T1-T6 tiers to every load-bearing claim, surface calibration mismatches (high confidence on weak evidence, or honesty-theater under-claiming), and flag P11 (citation-as-decoration), P17 (pile-of-anecdotes-as-evidence), P54…
deep-deliberation
Runs a checkpoint-gated decision process for consequential, forward-looking design choices. Use only when the user explicitly invokes deep-deliberation to compare approaches, challenge assumptions, and reach an evidence-grounded recommendation before implementation. Use dissect instead to audit an existing system or…