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 PostOakLabs/ainumbers --skill ai-marked-asset-anchoredgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PostOakLabs/ainumbersWrote 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/postoaklabs/ainumbers/ai-marked-asset-anchored)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/postoaklabs/ainumbers/ai-marked-asset-anchored"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/postoaklabs/ainumbers/ai-marked-asset-anchored/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/postoaklabs/ainumbers/ai-marked-asset-anchored"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/postoaklabs/ainumbers/ai-marked-asset-anchored.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 | $0.00074 | $0.00819 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00328 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00164 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
ai-marked-asset-anchored 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 today.
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 — 48 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Check that an asset is real and AI-marked and timestamp it
Validate a C2PA manifest and AI Act Art. 50 marking in the page, replay the content-credential chain remotely, and anchor the disclosure manifest to Bitcoin.
Prompt
A marketing team is about to publish an AI-generated product image with a C2PA manifest. Decide if it can ship, and give them proof.
- On https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-123-c2pa-manifest-validator.html, run the WebMCP tool with the page's synthetic manifest. Record verdict + execution_hash.
- On art-126, run check_ai_act_art50_marking with the same manifest's assertion set. On art-127, run verify_dual_layer_disclosure. Record both hashes.
- Call run_chain on content-credential-verification (art-123 > art-124 > art-125) remotely with the same synthetic manifest. Compare the art-123 step hash to your in-page hash from step 1 and state whether they are identical.
- Call build_disclosure_manifest over the five artifacts. Then call verify_disclosure_inclusion for the art-126 artifact and show the inclusion path.
- Call anchor_hash with the disclosure manifest root on OpenTimestamps. Then call upgrade_ots_proof and report whether the proof is still pending or already Bitcoin-attested (pending is expected within the first hours; say so).
- Build the ledger link for the composite chain artifact. Open it and report the §17 kernel identity and §18 compute proof lines.
- Write the publish decision: ship / do not ship, the Art. 50 findings, and a verification recipe a journalist could follow without contacting us (ledger link, OTS proof, kernel digest). Call shape: every ChainGraph node tool takes its arguments nested under one wrapper object, e.g. {"policy_parameters": { ... }}; flat arguments are discarded by schema validation. If a named tool is not in your tool list, call call_tool with { "name": "", "arguments": { … } }. It runs the same validation and returns the same receipt.
How to run
Connect an MCP-capable host to https://mcp.ainumbers.co/mcp, then give the prompt above to the assistant.
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.
- today First seen · 48 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 241bbe54b1c0
ai-marked-asset-anchored is a skill published in the GitHub repository PostOakLabs/ainumbers (10 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 819 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-27.
Other skills, from other repositories
onboarding
Full KYC customer onboarding with mandatory Step 0 independent verification (5+1 searches), 17 sequential stagegates requiring explicit analyst consent, deterministic four-factor risk scoring, case folder auto-creation, 4-sheet Excel dashboard, 17-section PDF report, and immutable audit trail. Covers UK/EU (AMLD5), US…
risk-assessment
Deterministic heuristic risk scoring using a four-factor weighted model (Geographic 30%, Customer 35%, Product 25%, Channel 10%) aligned with Basel III, EBA Guidelines, FATF standards, and FinCEN guidance. Bands: LOW (0-20), MEDIUM (21-60), HIGH (61-80), CRITICAL (81-100).
screening
Comprehensive sanctions and PEP screening against 12+ databases (OFAC, EU, UK, UN, INTERPOL) with false positive assessment, HITL decision gates, and regulatory-compliant documentation.
refresh
Periodic customer refresh with re-verification of original due diligence to detect material changes and maintain compliance with ongoing due diligence requirements. Triggers include time-based review (annual HIGH risk, 2-3 year intervals for MEDIUM/LOW), risk-based escalation (score changes, business pivots), and…
transaction-monitoring
AML transaction monitoring for ongoing customer relationships. Identifies suspicious patterns including structuring, layering, and unusual activity. Assesses against regulatory thresholds and prepares Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) with HITL decision gates.
fsi-compliance-checker
Maps code, architecture, and infrastructure changes to specific control IDs in PCI-DSS v4.0 and MAS TRM (Singapore financial regulator), producing an audit-traceable findings report with per-control remediation.