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 rfxn/rdf --skill r-verify-claimgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rfxn/rdfWrote 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/rfxn/rdf/r-verify-claim)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rfxn/rdf/r-verify-claim"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rfxn/rdf/r-verify-claim/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/rfxn/rdf/r-verify-claim"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rfxn/rdf/r-verify-claim.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 | $0.00020 | $0.01145 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00458 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00229 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
r-verify-claim 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.
The source is not reproduced here
Licensed GPL-2.0
The repository is licensed GPL-2.0, which this catalogue does not treat as permission to reproduce the file. Read it at the source.
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 · 130 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 2c88a97667ce
r-verify-claim is a skill published in the GitHub repository rfxn/rdf (20 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed GPL-2.0. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,145 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
fix-test
Debug and fix failing tests systematically.
wispr-flow-debug
Debug and test the Wispr Flow AutoHotkey dictation triggers (Copilot key + extra keys) from WSL by deploying macos.ahk to the Windows Desktop, reloading AutoHotkey, and reading the debug log. Use when an activation/trigger key isn't starting/stopping dictation, when the overlay clicks land wrong, or when verifying a…
claim-check
Claim checker that audits a coding agent's statements that tests pass or a build is clean against its own session transcripts: whether a matching run happened before the claim, whether it passed, and whether code changed after it. Use when the user asks whether the agent really ran the tests, how often it said tests…
debugging
A structured method for finding and fixing software bugs. It starts by writing a test that reproduces the failure, then investigates its underlying cause before making a small fix.
代码调试
A debugging workflow that reproduces a problem with a failing test, collects evidence, finds the underlying cause, applies a fix, and runs regression checks. Regression checks verify that the fix does not break behavior that already worked.
backpropagation
Trace runtime bugs back to spec gaps — identify missing acceptance criteria, update specs, generate regression tests, and detect patterns.