Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to ric03uec/clawrium. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ric03uec/clawrium/main/.claude/skills/itx-verify/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ric03uec/clawriumWrote 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/ric03uec/clawrium/itx-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ric03uec/clawrium/itx-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ric03uec/clawrium/itx-verify/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/ric03uec/clawrium/itx-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ric03uec/clawrium/itx-verify.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 | $0.00014 | $0.00593 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00237 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00119 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
itx-verify scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification
Run all verification checks to ensure code quality.
Instructions
-
Load Configuration:
ITX_CONFIG="$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.claude/itx-config.json" if [ -f "$ITX_CONFIG" ]; then TEST_CMD=$(jq -r '.build.test_command // "make test"' "$ITX_CONFIG") LINT_CMD=$(jq -r '.build.lint_command // "make lint"' "$ITX_CONFIG") COV_CMD=$(jq -r '.build.coverage_command // "make test-cov"' "$ITX_CONFIG") else TEST_CMD="make test" LINT_CMD="make lint" COV_CMD="make test-cov" fi -
Run Tests:
$TEST_CMD- All tests must pass
- Note any failures with details
-
Run Linter:
$LINT_CMD- All lint checks must pass
- Fix any issues found
-
Check Coverage (optional):
$COV_CMD- Review coverage for new code
- Ensure critical paths are tested
-
Report Results:
## Verification Results ### Tests - Command: <test command> - Status: PASS/FAIL - Details: <summary> ### Lint - Command: <lint command> - Status: PASS/FAIL - Details: <summary> ### Coverage - Status: <percentage> - New code coverage: <assessment> -
If Failures:
- Fix issues
- Re-run verification
- Iterate until all checks pass
Configuration
Customize build commands in .claude/itx-config.json:
{
"build": {
"test_command": "npm test",
"lint_command": "npm run lint",
"coverage_command": "npm run test:coverage"
}
}
Defaults (no config):
test_command:make testlint_command:make lintcoverage_command:make test-cov
Notes
- This is a local operation
- Must pass before creating PRs
- Use this after making changes, before committing
- Can be run multiple times during development
Prompt Logging
REQUIRED: Append prompt log to .itx/<N>/02_VERIFY.md.
See AGENTS.md for format specification.
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 Changed · -1 lines af6def927a76
- 2mo ago First seen · 104 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A a215ff184cd0
itx-verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository ric03uec/clawrium (67 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 593 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
python
Use when the task is Python itself, in any framework or none: PEP 695 generics, mypy --strict typing, dataclass/Protocol/TypedDict/Enum choices, asyncio.TaskGroup, stdlib idioms, src/ layout + pyproject.toml with uv, ruff+mypy+pytest gate. NOT a FastAPI/ASGI service (that is fastapi), NOT a deep pytest suite (that is…
review-test-stubs
Review the test stubs for coverage, scope, vacuous-assertion freedom, finding-grounded scope, and happy-path completeness against the interview and the modeled schema — not for code quality.
review-implementation
Gate the implementation against its contract for correctness, quality, drift, and green tests.
code-review
Perform a structured code review of changes, checking for correctness, style, tests, and potential issues.
remove-ai-slops
Removes AI-generated code smells from branch changes or an explicit file list behind regression tests. Use when the user asks to clean up, deslop, or remove AI-slop patterns from recent changes.
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.