nicknisi/dotfiles is a personal collection of configuration files and setup scripts for tools such as Neovim, zsh, Git, tmux, and Homebrew. It helps its author bootstrap and maintain a development machine, with a devcontainer for checking portable terminal settings. The catalogue entries extend the repository’s setup and coding-agent workflow.
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 nicknisi/dotfiles --skill verify-behaviorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nicknisi/dotfilesWrote 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/nicknisi/dotfiles/verify-behavior)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nicknisi/dotfiles/verify-behavior"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nicknisi/dotfiles/verify-behavior/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/nicknisi/dotfiles/verify-behavior"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nicknisi/dotfiles/verify-behavior.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
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 →
- medium Prompt Injection · line 21 Large whitespace padding was detected (a block of blank lines or a long run of spaces). This can push injected instructions below or to the right of the visible area so a human reviewer never sees them while the agent still reads them. Manual review of the hidden content is recommended.Fix: Remove the large whitespace padding (blank-line blocks or long space runs) and review any content hidden below or to the right of it. Keep skill files compact and reviewable so no instructions can be
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 | $0.01824 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00730 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00365 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00182 |
Grade A, and why
verify-behavior 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify behavior
Prove or disprove visible product behavior for bugs and greenfield features using pi-computer-use. Triage, implementation, and review stages invoke this instead of guessing from code alone.
Modes
reproduce— does the reported bug still happen on baseline? (usually default branch; triage)verify— does the implemented change match expected behavior? (features and fixes; implementation/review)
Infer if unnamed: issue-only → reproduce; implementation/PR branch → verify.
Platform contract (do not invent alternatives)
pi-computer-use exposes a direct, state-scoped tool surface, not a delegated capability and not raw screen capture. The normal loop:
| Step | Tools |
|---|---|
| Find | find_roots returns ranked @r roots (desktop windows and CDP browser pages share one forest). launch_browser for a managed CDP page. |
| Observe | observe_ui captures a root and returns a folded outline, @e refs, and a stateId. Every later @e use requires its owning stateId. |
| Query | search_ui, expand_ui, inspect_ui, and read_text query the cached state without re-capturing. Refine broad searches instead of paging matches. |
| Act | act_ui performs checked, transactional steps and returns the successor stateId. Attach expect when the action has an observable completion signal. |
| Wait | wait_for for asynchronous UI changes; navigate_browser / evaluate_browser only on CDP page states. |
Consume the successor stateId from act_ui directly; observe again only after an uncertain external mutation or state eviction.
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 · 122 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A ad5bb96cc460
verify-behavior is a skill published in the GitHub repository nicknisi/dotfiles (3,002 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 1,824 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-review
Intelligent PR code review with dynamic agent allocation based on change types. Analyzes PR changes and generates targeted review tasks.
analyze-pr
Analyze a GitHub/GitLab Pull Request by fetching its diff, reading its web description, and generating a comprehensive document. Use when the user provides a PR link and wants to understand what changes the PR introduces, or asks to review/analyze/summarize a pull request.
merge-ready
Drive an existing pull request to a mergeable state: get CI green, resolve merge conflicts with the base branch, address and resolve review comments, trigger required bot reviews/approvals (e.g. commenting '@claude review'), link associated issues, and clean up the PR title and description. Ends with a readiness…
review-code
Standalone code review for any scope — PR number, branch, file paths, or current changes. Synthesizes intent, runs 11 parallel specialized agents, and presents actionable findings with a verdict. For PR scope, optionally posts the review to GitHub with inline comments.
review-converge
Autonomously review and fix the current branch or specified scope in iterative rounds until clean, leaving all changes in the working tree. Escalates only genuine design decisions. Ends with a transparent report of every round, every fix, and anything it couldn't resolve.
review-prs
Fetch and present a prioritized summary of all PRs awaiting the current user's review across the relevant projects and provide an interactive workflow helping the user phrase and post inline review comments and overall review decisions.