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/ronaknnathani/relay/validatenpx skills add ronaknnathani/relay --skill validategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ronaknnathani/relayWrote 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/ronaknnathani/relay/validate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ronaknnathani/relay/validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ronaknnathani/relay/validate.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00108 | $0.01246 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00054 | $0.00623 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00249 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00125 |
Grade A, and why
validate 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 4d 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Validate
Decide whether a change is ready to ship and report the verdict — pass, or fail with the exact
failures someone else can act on. The bar: every acceptance criterion from clarify/plan is
demonstrably met, and every quality gate the repo defines is green, each shown by a command or
observation rather than asserted. This skill is a gate, not a fixer: on failure it hands precise
error-feedback to pr-fix or implement and stops. It does not edit code and does not ship.
Process
- Gather the acceptance criteria. Read the Success criteria from the
clarify/planartifacts. These are the goal-backward targets — what must be TRUE about the codebase. If no artifact exists, reconstruct the criteria from the task description and list them, so the verdict is checkable. - Discover the repo's own gate commands. Find how this repo lints, type-checks, tests, builds,
and audits — from its scripts/manifest/CI config (
explorewhen it isn't obvious). Use the repo's actual commands; never substitute a generic command or invent a gate the repo doesn't define. A gate the repo doesn't have is skipped as not-applicable (and noted), not faked. - Run every applicable quality gate — none skippable. The gates, in report order: lint → typecheck → unit tests → build → integration → e2e → security/audit → bundle-size. This sequence is the reporting/intent order, not a stop-on-first-failure barrier: run independent gates in parallel when the tooling allows (dispatch sub-agents when available; otherwise inline), never stop at the first failure, and capture every gate's output so the report is complete in one pass.
- Check each acceptance criterion, goal-backward. For each criterion, name the test, command, or direct observation that demonstrates it holds — and run/observe it. A criterion with no evidence is a FAIL, not a pass-by-assertion; "looks done" is not evidence.
- Render the verdict. PASS only if every applicable gate is green AND every acceptance criterion
has passing evidence. Otherwise FAIL. Report, for each failure: the exact command run, its
error output, and the location (file/line/criterion) — this is the error-feedback
pr-fixorimplementconsumes. Do not attempt deep fixes here; a one-line obvious typo is still routed out, not silently patched.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 79 lines · 108 tokens per session scan A 6d894fe22d4b
validate is a skill published in the GitHub repository ronaknnathani/relay (3 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 108 tokens to every session and 1,246 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
winui-ui-testing
Automated UI testing for Windows desktop apps — generate a batch test script with the winapp ui UI Automation harness, run all tests in one pass, read results. Covers element assertions, interactions, value checking (TextBox, ComboBox, ToggleSwitch), keyboard shortcuts and typing (send-keys), hover, drag-and-drop…
pr-review
Multi-dimensional review of a PR or feature branch in microsoft/win-dev-skills. Activate on "review my PR / changes / branch", "vet before pushing", "PR review", "is this ready to merge". Fans out parallel sub-agents over skill content, the skill-vs-tool boundary (solution hierarchy), tool correctness…
winui-design
Use when designing, reviewing, or fixing WinUI 3: sample and control discovery with winapp find-ui, layout planning, control choice, Fluent Design alignment, Light/Dark/High Contrast theming, typography, spacing, brushes, accessibility, and XAML data-binding design. Load before authoring new XAML, reviewing UI PRs…
winui-dev-workflow
Build and run workflow for WinUI 3 apps with WinApp CLI 0.6+ — project creation with winapp new, project-mode winapp run, BuildAndRun.ps1 analyzer integration, crash diagnosis, and prerequisites. Use when creating, building, running, or fixing build errors in a WinUI 3 project.
winui-packaging
MSIX packaging, code signing, and distribution for WinUI 3 apps — build for release, certificate generation (winapp cert generate), certificate trust, code signing (winapp sign), self-contained deployment, CI/CD with GitHub Actions, and Microsoft Store submission. Use when preparing for release, creating MSIX…
winui-session-report
Analyze the current or a recent agent session (GitHub Copilot CLI or Claude Code) and generate a diagnostic report. Use only when the user explicitly asks for session feedback, agent debugging, or a review of what happened during a build session. Do not inspect session data automatically.