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 randommonicle/claude-skills --skill prove-it-can-failgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/randommonicle/claude-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/randommonicle/claude-skills/prove-it-can-fail)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/randommonicle/claude-skills/prove-it-can-fail"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/randommonicle/claude-skills/prove-it-can-fail/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/randommonicle/claude-skills/prove-it-can-fail"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/randommonicle/claude-skills/prove-it-can-fail.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 | $0.00112 | $0.00986 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.00493 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00197 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
prove-it-can-fail 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 11d 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 — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Prove it can fail
A green board proves nothing unless every light on it can go red. This skill exists because nine-plus separate incidents produced green signals with no assertion behind them — including a statutory control that had never been asserted on any run, ever, and verification files that printed pass on any error. Layer: hub for test-and-check integrity (this is one of the six always-on norms; the norm line is the everyday trigger, this file is the playbook).
The question that does the work
For every check you write or review, ask: what does this output if the thing it guards is broken? If the honest answer is "still green", "a skip", or "nothing", the check is theatre. Answer it by demonstration where cheap: break the guarded thing once, watch the check go red, revert.
Rules
- A server reply is never a skip. Skips are for transport failures only — could not
connect, no credentials. A catch-all
catch { skip }hid both a never-passable gate test and a would-be-green total outage. A skipped regulated check is unverified, not green; say so in the run summary. - Seeds get assertions. Fire-and-forget seeding let an RLS isolation test pass for the wrong reason (nothing was seeded, so nothing leaked). Assert the seed landed before asserting the behaviour.
- Negative assertions need a positive control. "User B sees nothing" is only meaningful next to "User A sees the row". Without the positive control, an empty database passes.
- Only the specific expected error proves a control fired. "It threw" is not "the gate caught it" — assert the error identity (a stable code, not the human-readable message).
- A check whose two operands share a source is theatre. A "reconciliation check" that compared a value against its own definition could never fail. Trace both operands to independent sources.
- Watch a newly-armed gate's first run to completion — a nightly-gated spec once merged having never executed. And after fixing a pipeline's first red step, watch the whole run go green: a second failure can be queued invisibly behind the first.
- Test every mutation shape the app performs against a guard — set, swap, and null are three different attacks; a guard proven against one is unproven against the others.
- Assert on the subject, not a document-wide pattern. A broad "no X anywhere in the output" assertion is a hidden dependency on everything else and breaks on innocent code.
- A passing test can encode the bug. When fixing a bug, check whether a green test pins the wrong behaviour — two tests once codified drop-this-content as correct.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 66 lines · 112 tokens per session scan A fd9532e9559e
prove-it-can-fail is a skill published in the GitHub repository randommonicle/claude-skills (23 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 986 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
semgrep-rule-variant-creator
Creates language variants of existing Semgrep rules. Use when porting a Semgrep rule to specified target languages. Takes an existing rule and target languages as input, produces independent rule+test directories for each language.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.