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/romiluz13/cc10x/verificationnpx skills add romiluz13/cc10x --skill verificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/romiluz13/cc10xWhat 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 | $0.00052 | $0.01455 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00727 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00291 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00145 |
Grade A, and why
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 2d 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 — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification
Task completion is not goal achievement. Verify that the phase achieved its goal, not that prior agents said it did. If you cannot independently reproduce a claimed success, return FAIL.
Reference Files
references/live-production-testing.md— live/production verification strategy
The Gate Function
COMPLETION → TRUTH → PROOF
- Completion: Did the agent finish its task? (contract says PASS)
- Truth: Is the work actually correct? (independent verification)
- Proof: Can you prove it with evidence? (exit codes, test output, screenshots)
A PASS without proof is a claim.
Self-Critique Gate (BEFORE Verification Commands)
Before running any test, audit your own work:
Code Quality:
- No TODO/FIXME/stubs in changed files
- No commented-out code
- No debug logging left in
- Error handling covers the failure modes the change introduces
- Types are correct (not
as anyoras unknown)
Implementation Completeness:
- Every acceptance criterion from the plan has corresponding code
- Every named scenario has a test
- Every error path in the plan has handling
- No silent failures (empty catches, discarded errors)
- Build succeeds, type-check passes
Self-Critique Verdict: If any check fails, fix it BEFORE running verification. Don't run tests you know will fail on code quality issues — a known-failing run produces noise evidence that then has to be explained away.
Validation Levels
| Level | What | Exit Code | When |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deterministic | Automated test | 0/1 | Always — the default |
| Probabilistic | Test with known flake rate | 0/1 (retry policy) | When deterministic impossible (timing, network) |
| Manual | Human verifies with checklist | n/a | When automation not worth the cost |
| Live | Production-like environment | 0/1 | When plan requires live proof |
What ships with it
5 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.
- 2d ago First seen · 127 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A b7f601501d13
verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository romiluz13/cc10x (164 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 1,455 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
create-request
Create, update, or scan per-task request tickets for progress tracking. These are date-prefixed non-lifecycle docs under requests/, NOT feature-level requirements (use /req-analyze for those). Use when: tracking task progress, updating completion status, scanning incomplete requests, checking request status dashboard.…
codex-setup
Initialize sd0x-dev-flow infrastructure for Codex CLI and other non-Claude agents. Generates AGENTS.md, installs the commit-msg hook, copies runner scripts. The pre-push gate is opt-in via --with-push-gate. Use when setting up a new project or after updating skills.
codex-code-review
Code review using Codex MCP. Use when: PR review, code audit, second opinion on changes. Not for: doc review (use doc-review), security audit (use security-review). Output: severity-grouped findings + merge gate.
meta-harness-terminal-bench-2
Run one iteration of AgentHarness evolution for Terminal-Bench 2.
meta-harness
Run one iteration of memory system evolution. Called by metaharness.py or interactively via /meta-harness.
adr
Write an Architecture Decision Record (ADR) for a feature — Context / Decision / Status / Consequences / Alternatives, filed as docs/features/ /adr- - .md with a 3-digit zero-padded number. Handles the Superseded case: bidirectional linking when a new ADR replaces an old one. Use when: recording why an architectural…