Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to novuhq/novu. 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/novuhq/novu/next/.cursor/skills/verify-in-box/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/novuhq/novuWrote 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/novuhq/novu/verify-in-box)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/novuhq/novu/verify-in-box"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/novuhq/novu/verify-in-box/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/novuhq/novu/verify-in-box"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/novuhq/novu/verify-in-box.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 | $0.00067 | $0.01890 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00756 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00378 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00189 |
Grade A, and why
verify-in-box 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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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 Changed ff7f98f3b071
- 6d ago Changed · +3 lines 2a8fed422c45
- 8d ago Changed · +1 lines dacbf3190c49
- 9d ago First seen · 117 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 2c7c485be0ef
verify-in-box is a skill published in the GitHub repository novuhq/novu (40,220 stars, last pushed today), with no licence file. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 1,890 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 2026-10-20.
Other skills, from other repositories
reproduce-bug
Reproduce a reported bug in googleapis/mcp-toolbox and decide whether it is real, delivering an evidence-backed verdict: confirmed, already fixed, misconfiguration, client-side, works as intended, not reproducible, or blocked. Use whenever a maintainer asks you to reproduce, verify, confirm, or investigate a bug…
verify-omnigent
Drive Omnigent the way a user does and prove a behavior with recorded evidence, using an isolated server, runner, and mock model plus a feature map of every user entry point. Load before reproducing a user-facing bug, before claiming a fix works, or when reviewing whether a change covered every surface (session vs.…
testing-blocks
Use this when you have made AEM Edge Delivery Services code changes to blocks, scripts, or styles and need to validate them before opening a pull request. Covers unit testing for utilities and logic, browser testing with Playwright, linting, and guidance on what to test and how.
reality-verification
This skill should be used when the user asks to "verify a fix", "reproduce failure", "diagnose issue", "check BEFORE/AFTER state", "VF task", "reality check", "check test quality", "mock-only tests", or needs guidance on verifying fixes by reproducing failures before and after implementation, or detecting mock-heavy…
test-electron-app
Drive the real running PostHog Electron app (live tRPC, workspace-server, real data) over CDP with agent-browser. Connect to the running app on port 9222, test desktop changes against a local Django stack, snapshot the accessibility tree, inspect network requests, and screenshot only when explicitly asked. Use when…
quality-engineering-test-healing
Failure taxonomy and allowed/forbidden repairs for a failing E2E test. Use when a Playwright/Maestro/Detox/XCUITest/Espresso/Appium test fails and you must decide whether to repair the test or route to a real bug.