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 nirholas/three.ws --skill audit-verify-explain-grade-5git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nirholas/three.wsWrote 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/nirholas/three.ws/audit-verify-explain-grade-5)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nirholas/three.ws/audit-verify-explain-grade-5"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nirholas/three.ws/audit-verify-explain-grade-5/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/nirholas/three.ws/audit-verify-explain-grade-5"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nirholas/three.ws/audit-verify-explain-grade-5.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 | $0.00073 | $0.00785 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00392 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
audit-verify-explain-grade-5 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 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.
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.
This is a copy
100% identical to audit-verify-explain-grade-5 — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Audit, Verify, Explain
Core Rule
Treat every answer as three jobs:
- Audit what changed or what is being claimed.
- Verify it with direct evidence.
- Explain it like the reader is smart but new to the topic.
Do not skip verification when local files, commands, logs, tests, screenshots, or source data are available. Do not pretend something was verified if it was only inferred.
Workflow
1. Audit
Start by finding the real source of truth:
- For code changes, inspect the diff, touched files, related call sites, and existing tests.
- For bug fixes, identify the before/after behavior and the user-facing path.
- For performance claims, separate measured evidence from likely improvement.
- For release or app behavior, check the packaged/running artifact when possible.
- For documents or content, compare the user request against the actual produced artifact.
Look for:
- obvious bugs or regressions
- missing edge cases
- stale assumptions
- unverified claims
- mismatches between implementation and user intent
- risks that a grade-5 explanation might accidentally hide
2. Verify
Prefer evidence in this order:
- Automated tests, builds, linters, typechecks, or validators.
- Running the actual app or workflow.
- Logs, process checks, screenshots, generated artifacts, or live output.
- Static code inspection when execution is impractical.
- Clearly labeled inference when nothing stronger is available.
When verification fails, report the blocker and what it means. When verification is partial, say exactly what was and was not checked.
For performance work, avoid overclaiming. Say "this removes repeated work" only when the code clearly does so. Say "should improve" only when no timing trace was captured. Say "measured faster" only when before/after measurements exist.
3. Explain Simply
Use grade-5 language without talking down to the user:
- Use short sentences.
- Define technical terms in plain words.
- Use one simple analogy only if it genuinely helps.
- Say what changed, why it matters, and how to test it.
- Keep important caveats visible.
What ships with it
6 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 105 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A d4b5ce0ccda2
audit-verify-explain-grade-5 is a skill published in the GitHub repository nirholas/three.ws (114 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 785 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to audit-verify-explain-grade-5, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
gsd-ns-review
Route to the appropriate quality / review skill based on the user's intent. gsd-code-review-fix was absorbed by gsd-code-review --fix in #2790.
sonarqube-mcp
Provides SonarQube and SonarCloud integration patterns via the Model Context Protocol (MCP) server. Enables quality gate monitoring, issue discovery and triaging, pre-push code analysis, and rule education directly in the agent workflow. Use when the user wants to check quality gates, search for Sonar issues, analyze…
dorodango
Polishes working code through successive quality passes in fresh subagents. Use after tests pass when code needs multi-dimension refinement before release.
java-code-review
Review Java code for bugs, duplicate code, correctness risks, maintainability improvements, and missing tests. By default review files modified in git; when the user explicitly names files, classes, packages, or a diff, review that scope instead. Generate a detailed review.md report with actionable comments and fixes.
karpathy-guidelines
Surgical execution guardrails for coding, debugging, review, and refactor tasks.
ring:searching-code
Forensic code search and analysis with optional Chain of Draft (CoD) ultra-concise mode. Five-phase methodology (clarification, planning, execution, analysis, synthesis) with severity assessment. Use for targeted investigation of specific patterns, bugs, or vulnerabilities. Skip for broad architecture mapping (use…