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 rjmurillo/ai-agents --skill repository-consumer-proofgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rjmurillo/ai-agentsWrote 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/rjmurillo/ai-agents/repository-consumer-proof)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rjmurillo/ai-agents/repository-consumer-proof"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rjmurillo/ai-agents/repository-consumer-proof/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/rjmurillo/ai-agents/repository-consumer-proof"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rjmurillo/ai-agents/repository-consumer-proof.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 | $0.00033 | $0.01746 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00698 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00349 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00175 |
Grade A, and why
repository-consumer-proof 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 3d 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 — 159 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Repository consumer proof
Requires the rjmurillo/ai-agents checkout and its contributor-only sibling skills.
Inputs: requested capability, selected harness, consumer context, and allowed execution environment. Apply the common execution contract. Define success as observable consumer behavior, including valid neighboring behavior. Reuse generation, portability, empirical probes, and validation instead of adding another framework.
Triggers
prove an ai-agents capability worksplugin initializes but never executeshook fails from foreign cwd
Process
Phase 1: Select the missing proof and source before implementation
Write the expected observation and one negative control in task context. A negative control changes one condition and should invert the relevant observation. Select the lowest layer that lacks evidence:
| Missing evidence | First discriminating action | Required observation |
|---|---|---|
| Canonical ownership or output drift | Read the artifact row in the linked binplace manifest and build guide. | Source, plugin output, and installed output agree on ownership. |
| Hook executes only from repository cwd | Select runtime-contract and plugin-root cases. | Installed launcher reaches the intended implementation from foreign cwd. |
| Plugin initializes but a command does not execute | Select the installed completion-dispatcher case. | Parsed criterion output proves dispatch actually ran. |
| Structural tests pass but agent behavior is wrong | Select a runtime parity fixture and negative control. | Valid live samples meet the maintained behavioral thresholds. |
For generated artifacts, inspect current owners before loading older generation instructions.
.claude/skills/*/SKILL.md, hooks, settings, agents, and rules are generated outputs.
Skill support files remain canonical under .claude/skills/, except the review validator sidecar.
See build ownership,
binplace manifest,
and .claude ownership.
Do not repair a mirror or edit canonical input merely to match a stale output.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 159 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 6cfeab24b95e
repository-consumer-proof is a skill published in the GitHub repository rjmurillo/ai-agents (48 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,746 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-10-15.
Other skills, from other repositories
parity-guard-test-pattern
When checking that all callers of a contract implement it correctly, you get false positives from wrapper delegators.
phoenix-review
Review completed work against the Intent Contract's acceptance criteria using objective evidence, not opinion — re-run every check, confirm no regressions, inspect the tamper-evident trace, and surface only real issues (bugs, unmet criteria, regressions). Use before shipping, after a feature is built, or when the user…
loop-verifier
Independent verification agent for loop-produced changes. Finds reasons to reject. Runs tests. Confirms diff scope. Use after minimal-fix or any implementer sub-agent — never in the same role as the implementer.
verification
Verification-before-completion discipline ensuring all success criteria are met, tests pass, and reviews complete before declaring work done.
053-design-simple-rules
Use when Java design, refactoring, or implementation tradeoffs should be evaluated with Kent Beck's simple design rules, including passes the tests, reveals intention, has no duplication, and has the fewest elements. This should trigger for requests such as Apply simple design rules; Review this design with Beck's…
Pair Programming
AI-assisted pair programming with multiple modes (driver$navigator$switch), real-time verification, quality monitoring, and comprehensive testing. Supports TDD, debugging, refactoring, and learning sessions. Features automatic role switching, continuous code review, security scanning, and performance optimization with…