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 verify-checkpointgit 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-checkpoint)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nvzver/claude-marketplace/verify-checkpoint"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nvzver/claude-marketplace/verify-checkpoint/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-checkpoint"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nvzver/claude-marketplace/verify-checkpoint.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 | $0.00157 | $0.03657 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00078 | $0.01828 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00731 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00366 |
Grade A, and why
verify-checkpoint 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 10d 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 — 104 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Trace. On load, print first:
=============== [observer/skills/verify-checkpoint/SKILL.md] [observer] ===============
Verify Checkpoint
Grader Actor — the second Actor in the observer module, sibling to observe. Where observe coaches through a role, this Actor gates. Its core unit of work is grading one signalled increment: on a checkpoint signal an implementer emits when it pauses having completed one F-requirement, it grades that single increment against the spec on two of reconcile's three checks — does · only — and emits a CLEAR or BLOCK verdict.
That grading logic is the spine, and it is identical across two invocation modes — the mode is only the entry point:
- (a) Per-increment dispatch (first-class) — the delegating context (
lsa:delegate) dispatches this Actor once per signalled increment via theAgenttool; the Actor grades that one increment and returns the verdict. No loop is started. - (b) Standalone
/looprider — this Actor rides the substrate's self-paced/loop(omit the interval to self-pace) and, on each wake, checks for a checkpoint signal, grading each signalled increment as it wakes.
In /loop mode it rides the existing loop; it does not build a scheduler (../../../.lsa/VISION.md principle 9, Substrate-native first).
This is not lsa:verify. lsa:verify is the before-delegation grounding check (is the spec ready to hand to an implementer). This Actor is an after-the-increment check (did the increment the implementer just finished conform), scoped to one F-requirement — the per-increment analogue of lsa:reconcile, which grades the whole plan at the end. It applies does · only only; the third check, all (whole-plan completeness), stays with the final lsa:reconcile (../../../lsa/skills/reconcile/SKILL.md:35).
The checkpoint-signal contract
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 104 lines · 157 tokens per session scan A f10f4efdecbf
verify-checkpoint is a skill published in the GitHub repository NVZver/claude-marketplace (1 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 157 tokens to every session and 3,657 once invoked, about $0.0008 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…