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 agentmods add skills/practicalswan/agent-skills/documentation-verificationnpx skills add PracticalSwan/agent-skills --skill documentation-verificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PracticalSwan/agent-skillsWrote 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/practicalswan/agent-skills/documentation-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/practicalswan/agent-skills/documentation-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/practicalswan/agent-skills/documentation-verification.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00038 | $0.00963 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00481 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00193 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00096 |
Grade A, and why
documentation-verification 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 yesterday.
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 — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Documentation Verification
Use this skill when a docs change needs evidence, not just a writing pass.
- Leverage native parallel subagent dispatch and 200k+ context windows where available.
Activation Conditions
Use symptom -> action triggers: when one matches, apply this skill and verify with the protocol below.
- Reviewing docs before merge or release
- Checking README, setup, or config accuracy
- Verifying local links, commands, and code samples
- Confirming docs changed alongside user-facing behavior
Verification Workflow
- Confirm the docs cover the changed behavior.
- Check relative links and referenced files.
- Validate commands and snippets where feasible.
- Report missing coverage and stale claims explicitly.
Documentation Stack Reference
Inherit the shared stack from documentation-patterns: source-of-truth discovery, audience framing, structure selection, verification, and freshness checks. Keep this skill focused on final evidence checks instead of restating the full stack.
Anti-Patterns
- Writing for the author instead of the reader: It bakes in unstated context and leaves the actual audience unsure what to do next.
- Skipping concrete examples or commands: Abstract guidance is easy to approve and hard to apply correctly.
- Letting links, screenshots, or versions drift: Polished formatting does not help if the instructions are no longer true.
Verification Protocol
Before claiming "skill applied successfully":
- Pass/fail: The Documentation Verification output identifies audience, purpose, source of truth, and freshness requirements.
- Pass/fail: Shared documentation-stack guidance is referenced instead of duplicating another documentation skill.
- Pass/fail: Claims, links, commands, examples, and screenshots are verified or explicitly marked unverified.
- Pressure-test scenario: Apply the skill to a doc request with a stale command, missing owner, and conflicting audience.
- Success metric: Zero undocumented assumptions; every reader-facing claim is sourced or scoped.
What ships with it
4 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.
- yesterday Changed 1052cfd411d0
- 4d ago First seen · 98 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A be2b560a7cd3
documentation-verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository PracticalSwan/agent-skills (13 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 963 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
doc-claim-validator
Validate that claims in documentation match codebase reality. Extracts verifiable assertions (file paths, commands, function references, behavioral claims, dependencies) from markdown docs and checks them against the actual project. Use after code changes, before releases, or when docs feel untrustworthy.
requesting-code-review
Pre-commit review: security scan, quality gates, auto-fix.
librechat-docs
Use the official LibreChat documentation to install, configure, operate, and troubleshoot LibreChat.
verification-gates
Creates explicit validation checkpoints (verification gates) between project phases to catch errors early and ensure quality before proceeding. Use when the user asks about quality gates, milestone checks, phase transitions, approval steps, go/no-go decision points, or preventing cascading errors across a multi-step…
dos-verify-done-claims
Before accepting an agent's 'done / shipped / fixed' claim, verify it against ground truth (git ancestry + the commit's own diff) using the DOS kernel's dos verify and dos commit-audit — never the agent's own narration.
submit
Complete submission workflow - quality checks, commit, PR creation, changelog generation, and final push. Use after finishing implementation work.