Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to milzamsz/flaredeck. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/milzamsz/flaredeck/main/.agents/skills/flaredeck-verification/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/milzamsz/flaredeckWrote 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/milzamsz/flaredeck/flaredeck-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/milzamsz/flaredeck/flaredeck-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/milzamsz/flaredeck/flaredeck-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/milzamsz/flaredeck/flaredeck-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/milzamsz/flaredeck/flaredeck-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 | $0.00046 | $0.00313 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00125 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00063 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00031 |
Grade A, and why
flaredeck-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 1mo 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
FlareDeck Verification
Review process
- Read the active task and relevant source-of-truth documents.
- Inspect the complete diff and affected existing code.
- Build an acceptance-criteria matrix.
- Review product scope, domain invariants, dependency direction, interface parity, trust, secrets, process lifecycle, routes, error contracts, and migration.
- Run relevant verification commands and focused risk tests.
- Classify findings by severity.
- Return a merge decision based on evidence.
Mandatory review areas
- unrelated scope expansion;
- duplicated orchestration in Tauri, CLI, or MCP;
- secret leakage in success, error, logs, audit, fixtures, or snapshots;
- trust bypass or incorrect fingerprint fields;
- arbitrary command or path escape;
- ownership and idempotency of stop/cleanup;
- pre-existing tunnel protection;
- cross-platform process behavior;
- schema and error compatibility;
- tests for failure and cleanup, not only happy path;
- documentation and examples matching implementation.
Decision values
ApproveApprove with follow-upBlock
Include findings ordered by severity and the exact evidence required to resolve each blocked item.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 41 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 67d914107668
flaredeck-verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository milzamsz/flaredeck (5 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 313 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…