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 PlamenTSV/plamen --skill verification-protocolgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PlamenTSV/plamenWrote 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/plamentsv/plamen/verification-protocol)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/plamentsv/plamen/verification-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/plamentsv/plamen/verification-protocol/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/plamentsv/plamen/verification-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/plamentsv/plamen/verification-protocol.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00018 | $0.03191 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.01276 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00638 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00319 |
Grade A, and why
verification-protocol 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 382 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Protocol -- Aptos Move
How to prove a hypothesis is TRUE or FALSE using Move unit tests.
Evidence Source Tracking (MANDATORY)
CRITICAL: For EVERY piece of evidence used in verification, you MUST tag its source. Evidence from mocks or unverified external modules CANNOT support a REFUTED verdict.
Evidence Source Tags
| Tag | Meaning | Valid for REFUTED? |
|---|---|---|
| [PROD-ONCHAIN] | Production module verified on Aptos Explorer | YES |
| [PROD-SOURCE] | Source code verified on-chain (Aptos Explorer source verification) | YES |
| [CODE] | Audited codebase (in-scope) | YES |
| [MOCK] | Mock/test module | NO |
| [EXT-UNV] | External module, unverified behavior | NO |
| [DOC] | Documentation/spec only | NO (needs verification) |
Evidence Audit Table (REQUIRED in every verification output)
Before ANY verdict, fill this table:
### Evidence Audit
| Claim | Evidence Source | Tag | Valid for REFUTED? |
|-------|-----------------|-----|-------------------|
| "External module returns X" | Mock module | [MOCK] | NO |
| "State changes to Y" | protocol_module.move:123 | [CODE] | YES |
| "Coin transfer triggers Z" | Aptos Explorer source | [PROD-ONCHAIN] | YES |
Mock Rejection Rule
AUTOMATIC OVERRIDE: If ANY evidence supporting REFUTED has tag [MOCK] or [EXT-UNV]:
- CANNOT return REFUTED
- MUST return CONTESTED
- Triggers production verification
Example:
## Verdict: REFUTED -> CONTESTED (mock evidence override)
### Evidence Audit
| Claim | Source | Tag | Valid? |
|-------|--------|-----|--------|
| "Staking returns shares" | test_staking.move:45 | [MOCK] | NO |
**Override reason**: REFUTED verdict relies on mock behavior at test_staking.move:45.
Production module behavior is UNVERIFIED. Must verify against on-chain source.
Pre-Verification Understanding
Before writing ANY test code, you MUST answer:
Question 1: What is the EXACT bug?
NOT: "Something is inconsistent"
NOT: "State is wrong"
NOT: "Capability leak possible"
YES: "[Variable/resource] is [read/written/moved] at [location] but should be
[read/written/moved] at [other location] because [specific reason]"
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 382 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 19365a9eaa97
verification-protocol is a skill published in the GitHub repository PlamenTSV/plamen (307 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 3,191 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
foundry-testing
Write and debug Foundry tests and Solidity scripts. Use when writing unit, fuzz, fork, or invariant tests, writing bulloak BTT .tree specs (Branching Tree Technique), using cheatcodes, benchmarking gas, measuring coverage, writing deploy scripts, or working in tests/ or script/.
web3-testing
Test smart contracts comprehensively using Hardhat and Foundry with unit tests, integration tests, and mainnet forking. Use when testing Solidity contracts, setting up blockchain test suites, or validating DeFi protocols.
smart-contract-testing
Guide for testing smart contracts using Foundry and Hardhat, covering unit tests, fuzz testing, invariant testing, fork testing, and gas benchmarking.
test-fixtures
Use when setting up test environments for Solidity protocols. Covers mock contracts, fork-based fixtures, shared setUp, factory patterns, token deployments, and reusable test helpers.
coverage-analysis
Use when measuring test coverage for Solidity contracts, identifying untested code paths, or establishing coverage requirements. Covers forge coverage, lcov output, visualization, and coverage-driven testing.
tevm
Build, simulate, test, fork, and debug EVM transactions in TypeScript with tevm 1.0.0-rc.151. Use for in-process EVM scripts, typed Solidity imports, lazy mainnet or OP-stack forks, direct account and storage setup, viem-compatible contract actions, Vitest EVM tests, traces, and transaction simulation.