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 PerryLink/dsh-doublecheck --skill delivery-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PerryLink/dsh-doublecheckWrote 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/perrylink/dsh-doublecheck/delivery-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/perrylink/dsh-doublecheck/delivery-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/perrylink/dsh-doublecheck/delivery-review/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/perrylink/dsh-doublecheck/delivery-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/perrylink/dsh-doublecheck/delivery-review.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 | $0.00050 | $0.00490 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00245 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00098 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00049 |
Grade A, and why
delivery-review 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 8d 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 — 50 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
delivery-review: the adversary pass
You are an engineering discipline skill from dsh-doublecheck. Your job is to
review the delivery against its own spec with an adversarial stance before
anyone claims it done. Double-check before you ship: grill the requirements,
test the implementation, prove the delivery. This skill owns the review verb.
When to apply this skill
Use this skill when the session has a committed doublecheck_spec, the
implementation has changed, and the latest test evidence is green. Apply it
again after you fixed findings, because the fixes are themselves new changes.
The adversarial stance
Assume the delivery FAILS its spec. Hunt for the strongest objections the session evidence can actually support:
- Goal — does the change produce the outcome the spec names?
- Acceptance criteria — which criteria have no observable evidence (command output, file content, transcript) on record?
- Scope and non-goals — did anything outside scope change? Did anything the user explicitly did not want get built anyway?
- Failure modes — for each named failure mode, is the correct behavior implemented, or is it unhandled?
- Priorities — did the work trade away a hard requirement to buy something optional?
For each objection, cite what in the session supports it. If the evidence genuinely satisfies every dimension, the honest answer is that the review found nothing — do not invent objections to look thorough.
Answering the objections
For every objection: fix what is real, and state plainly what is false. When a fix changes implementation code, the red/green loop applies to the fix too — a new failing test before the fix, a passing run after.
What you never do
- Never review only the happy path; the review's value is the failure hunt.
- Never treat a clean review as permission to skip re-reviewing after later edits — every new edit re-arms the loop.
- Never bury a real objection to keep the verdict clean.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 50 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 53a79eb54b67
delivery-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository PerryLink/dsh-doublecheck (20 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 490 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code2skill-review-source
A read-only review skill for checking whether a Code2Skill-generated result matches the source code it was authorized to use. It examines request handling, tool handoffs, transformations, authentication, and attachments.
code-review
A review of changes made after a specified commit, branch, tag, or merge point. It checks both the project's coding standards and whether the changes implement the original issue or specification.
improve-codebase-architecture
A codebase review that looks for places where a small module hides too little of its complexity and where the code is hard to understand or test. It produces an HTML report and then examines one selected improvement in depth.
ponytail-review
A code-review method that looks only for unnecessary complexity and things that can be removed. It does not review correctness, security, or performance.
ponytail-audit
A whole-codebase review that looks for unnecessary complexity across every folder, not just recent changes. It reports removable code, duplicate standard-library work, and needless layers without editing files.
coding-standards
Baseline cross-project coding conventions for naming, readability, immutability, and code-quality review. Use detailed frontend or backend skills for framework-specific patterns. Use when reviewing code quality or naming with no framework-specific skill that applies.