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 NVZver/claude-marketplace --skill verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/NVZver/claude-marketplaceWrote 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/nvzver/claude-marketplace/verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nvzver/claude-marketplace/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nvzver/claude-marketplace/verify/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/nvzver/claude-marketplace/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nvzver/claude-marketplace/verify.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 | $0.00028 | $0.00683 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00342 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00137 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
verify 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 9d 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 — 47 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Trace. On load, print first:
=============== [lsa/skills/verify/SKILL.md] [lsa] ===============
LSA Verify (before — grounding)
See CORE.md §6 (the two checks). This is the before check; reconcile is the after check.
Role
Grounding checker.
Goal
Confirm the spec is grounded in real code and buildable, before any handoff.
Inputs
| Input | Source |
|---|---|
The spec (requirements.md, <flow>.feature) |
specify |
| The codebase | self |
| Quality-gate checks (optional) | .lsa.yaml gate: — see knowledge/quality-gate-contract.md |
Steps
- Identify the modules / functions / types the spec names (your judgment — never scripted), then pass them as arguments to
bash scripts/resolve-refs.sh <symbol>…and cite its per-symbol resolution (exists @ file:line|new|MISSING|OUT-OF-RANGE) as the reference map — instead of multiple manual searches. Resolving each symbol is deterministic lookup (.lsa/VISION.md§2 principle 10); the GROUNDED / NOT-GROUNDED judgment stays yours. (→ reference map) - For each user flow: confirm it is buildable on what exists; infeasible → flag. (→ feasibility)
- Confirm every claim is cited and every
[ASSUMPTION]is visible. (→ grounding verdict) - Where
.lsa.yamldefines agate:block, run each configured check and cite its command + exit code as the grounding evidence — do not re-derive the checks by hand. Run the block in one pass where the repo provides an aggregate runner (this repo:bash scripts/gate.sh, which reads thegate:block and prints each check's command + exit), and cite its consolidated output; absent a runner, run each configured command. A non-zero exit is a real defect (a broken citation, dangling link, or violated invariant) and yieldsNOT-GROUNDED. (→ gate results)
Output
GROUNDED or NOT-GROUNDED with grounding.md (per reference: exists @ file:line | new | [ASSUMPTION]), the cited gate: command + exit for each configured check, and any blockers.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 47 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A bcb6da1f0aeb
verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository NVZver/claude-marketplace (1 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 683 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
improve-code-quality
Guided journey from a working-but-untested vibe-coded prototype to a production-ready product with tests, clean structure, a business-rules boundary, and resilience at scale. Orchestrates nine skills phase by phase - working-with-legacy-code, clean-code, refactoring-patterns, software-design-philosophy…
refactoring-patterns
Apply named refactoring transformations to improve code structure without changing behavior. Use when the user mentions "refactor this", "code smells", "extract method", "replace conditional", "technical debt", "move method", "inline variable", "decompose conditional", or "clean up this messy code". Also trigger when…
team-review
Review changed code for reuse, quality, and efficiency using a team of persistent named reviewers. This skill should be used when the user says "team review", "review with team", or wants parallel code review with persistent team members for follow-up questions. Similar to /subagent-review but reviewers persist after…
roslyn-query
Query .NET/C# codebases using Roslyn AST analysis via dotnet run file. Use for tracing data flow, auditing API usage, finding pattern violations, or ad-hoc codebase queries.
review-responder
Use when receiving feedback on code you implemented, responding to reviewer comments, deciding which review suggestions to implement, or pushing back on incorrect review feedback.
codex
Route a task to OpenAI's Codex CLI (codex exec) instead of doing it yourself. Use this skill ANY time the user names codex or types /codex — even for routine work Claude could handle, because the user is choosing to delegate. The intent: 'ask codex', 'have codex review/refactor this', 'check/validate with codex', 'see…