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 omnigentx/jarvis --skill verification-before-completiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/omnigentx/jarvisWrote 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/omnigentx/jarvis/verification-before-completion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/omnigentx/jarvis/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/omnigentx/jarvis/verification-before-completion/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/omnigentx/jarvis/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/omnigentx/jarvis/verification-before-completion.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 Excessive Agency · line 46 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00031 | $0.00324 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00130 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00065 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00032 |
Grade A, and why
verification-before-completion 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.
What it actually says
VERIFICATION BEFORE COMPLETION
<verification_checklist>
BEFORE reporting "done", verify ALL of the following:
Code Quality
- Code runs without errors
- No unresolved TODO/FIXME
- No leftover console.log/print debug statements
- Code is properly formatted
Testing
- Unit tests pass
- Edge cases are covered
- Test failure messages are clear and descriptive
Documentation
- Docstrings for new functions
- README updated if setup changed
- Inline comments for complex logic
Integration
- Does not break existing functionality
- API contracts match spec
- UI renders correctly across screen sizes </verification_checklist>
<bugfix_protocol> When fixing a bug:
- Reproduce the bug (you MUST see it happen)
- Apply the fix
- Verify the bug NO LONGER occurs
- Run the ENTIRE test suite (not just related tests) </bugfix_protocol>
✅ Correct
- "Verified: tests pass, edge case X handled, no regressions"
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 · 51 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 5ea5f7ede013
verification-before-completion is a skill published in the GitHub repository omnigentx/jarvis (39 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 324 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing.
observability-langsmith
LLM observability platform for tracing, evaluation, and monitoring. Use when debugging LLM applications, evaluating model outputs against datasets, monitoring production systems, or building systematic testing pipelines for AI applications.
experimental-code-coverage-local-debugger
Runs code coverage locally via Universal Test Runner (UTR) or helper scripts, mimicking LUCI trybots. Activate when CQ tryjobs fail or underreport coverage, to test local GN/recipe repairs before uploading, or to debug hermetic crashes.
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.…
cli-e2e
Write, modify, or debug Docker-based Composio CLI end-to-end tests under ts/e2e-tests/cli, including binary invocation, fixture isolation, output assertions, and package manifests. Use for CLI E2E test suites only; use cli-command for CLI source implementation.
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…