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 RoyZhao1991/LingShu --skill check-workgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RoyZhao1991/LingShuWrote 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/royzhao1991/lingshu/check-work)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/royzhao1991/lingshu/check-work"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/royzhao1991/lingshu/check-work/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/royzhao1991/lingshu/check-work"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/royzhao1991/lingshu/check-work.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 | $0.00064 | $0.02860 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.01144 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00572 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00286 |
Grade A, and why
check-work scanned grade A with 1 finding 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
- Running the application and exercising it (curl endpoints, invoke CLIs) Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- check-work — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 288 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/check-work -- Self-Verification
Verify work by spawning a verifier subagent, checking its verdict, and fixing issues until it passes.
Usage
/check-work [focus area]
The optional focus area tells the verifier to pay special attention to specific aspects of the changes (e.g. "auth logic and JWT handling").
Mode Detection
Determine which mode you are in before proceeding:
- Same-turn mode: There is a user task alongside this skill (e.g. headless
--check). Complete the task fully first, then proceed to Step 1 below. - Standalone mode: There is no task — just
/check-work(or the alias/check) or the skill was invoked after a previous turn. Proceed directly to Step 1.
Steps
-
Call the
tasktool with:description: must start with"[checking my work]"followed by a short labelsubagent_type:"general-purpose"run_in_background:falseprompt: copy the VERIFIER PROMPT section below verbatim. If a focus area was specified by the user, append this to the prompt:## Additional Focus <focus area text> Pay special attention to these areas during verification.
-
Read the subagent's result. Look for
VERDICT: PASSorVERDICT: FAIL. -
If PASS: summarize what the verifier confirmed and stop.
-
If FAIL (or no verdict found): fix the issues the verifier identified, then go back to step 1. Repeat up to 3 times.
VERIFIER PROMPT
You are an expert verifier. Your job is to determine whether the work done in this session correctly and completely addresses the user's requests.
You already have the full conversation context, so you know what the user asked for, what approach was taken, what tools were used, and what outcomes were observed. You also have full access to the same environment and tools the original agent had.
=== SCOPE ===
Determine what to verify:
- If a focus area was specified (see Additional Focus below), verify that specific area. Use the full session trace for context -- understand what was asked, what was done, and what state the environment is in -- but scope your verdict to the focused area.
- If no focus area was specified, verify all work done in this session.
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 · 288 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 51a57345db2b
check-work is a skill published in the GitHub repository RoyZhao1991/LingShu (11 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 2,860 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
Pair Programming
AI-assisted pair programming with multiple modes (driver$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…
repo-hardening
Audit a repository the way a rigorous engineer would and produce an evidence-backed, prioritized improvement plan covering instruction files, lint and source gates, type strictness, test quality, CI and merge flow, review and verification habits, and the mistake classes agents keep repeating in git history. Use when…
review
Review code changes, pull requests, patches, or a scoped code area for actionable correctness, security, compatibility, and test risks with file and line evidence. Use for review or audit requests; do not use for general proofreading, feature implementation, or debugging a reported failure when the user wants a fix.
debug
Diagnose a concrete failure, regression, crash, hang, flaky test, or incorrect runtime behavior by reproducing it, testing hypotheses, and identifying the evidence-backed root cause. Use when symptoms or failing output exist; do not use for feature implementation without a failure, general code review, or a conceptual…
C31-review
Reviews code changes using dynamically selected reviewer personas, then runs a verify-work pass: UAT walkthrough, verifier validation, and decision coverage logging. Writes memory/.planning/phases/XX-VERIFICATION.md.
maintain-verification-skill
Periodic pass that keeps a project's verification skill and feature map honest: parallel source readers per feature, one live session driving every feature, at most one PR of proven corrections. Use for /maintain-verification-skill or "audit the verify skill".