Comet is a resumable workflow and skill platform for coding tasks, covering requirements work as well as skill creation, evaluation, and release. It supports separate Native and Classic workflows and can coordinate implementation and verification across isolated Git worktrees. The catalogue contains skills and instructions that implement Comet-related workflows.
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 rpamis/comet --skill comet-classic-039-verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rpamis/cometWrote 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/rpamis/comet/comet-classic-039-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rpamis/comet/comet-classic-039-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rpamis/comet/comet-classic-039-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/rpamis/comet/comet-classic-039-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rpamis/comet/comet-classic-039-verify.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 80 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00032 | $0.03101 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.01550 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00620 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00310 |
Grade A, and why
comet-verify scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 235 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Comet Phase 4: Verify and Close (Verify)
Prerequisites
- Code committed (Phase 3 complete)
- All tasks.md tasks completed
Steps
0a. Output Language Constraint
Verification reports and branch-handling notes must use the language of the user request that triggered this workflow.
0b. Entry State Verification (Entry Check)
Execute entry verification:
COMET_ENV="${COMET_ENV:-$(find . "$HOME"/.*/skills "$HOME/.config" "$HOME/.gemini" -path '*/comet/scripts/comet-env.sh' -type f -print -quit 2>/dev/null)}"
if [ -z "$COMET_ENV" ]; then
echo "ERROR: comet-env.sh not found. Ensure the comet skill is installed." >&2
return 1
fi
. "$COMET_ENV"
"$COMET_BASH" "$COMET_STATE" check <change-name> verify
Proceed to Step 1 after verification passes. The script outputs specific failure reasons when verification fails.
Idempotency: All verify phase checks can be safely re-executed. If verify_result is already pass and branch_status is handled, verification is complete — execute guard to transition. If verify_result is pending, start verification from the beginning.
1. Scale Assessment
Execute scale assessment:
"$COMET_BASH" "$COMET_STATE" scale <change-name>
The script automatically counts tasks, delta spec count, changed file count, determines light or full verification mode, and sets the verify_mode field. Decision rule (any condition triggers full): tasks > 3, delta spec capabilities > 1, changed files > 4.
Before verification begins, handle uncommitted changes through comet/reference/dirty-worktree.md protocol. Verify phase special handling:
- If dirty diff belongs to current change and involves implementation, tests, tasks, delta spec, or design doc changes, do not fix or commit directly in verify phase; report failures and enter Step 1b verification failure decision blocking point
- If dirty diff is only verify phase artifacts (e.g., verification report draft, branch handling records), may continue and record state in verify phase
- If dirty diff shows implementation but tasks.md not checked, treat as build state lag; report failures and enter Step 1b, let user decide to roll back for fix or accept deviation
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 235 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 506d52a77a6f
comet-verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository rpamis/comet (2,988 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 3,101 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
load-pr-review
Load GitHub PR review comments into AI session — analyze, triage, plan. Default: analysis-only (no auto-fix). Use when: reviewing PR feedback, planning fixes, addressing review comments, replying to reviewers. Not for: creating reviews (use codex-review-fast), creating PRs (use create-pr), viewing PR status (use…
issue-analyze
GitHub Issue and PR review thread deep analysis with Codex blind verdict. Use when: analyzing issue root cause, classifying problems, investigation planning, triaging PR review comments for actionability. Not for: fixing bugs (use bug-fix), code exploration (use code-explore). Output: classified analysis + verdict…
best-practices
Industry best practices conformance audit with mandatory adversarial debate. Produces audit artifact: verdict (OK/WARN/FAIL) + gap roadmap + debate proof. Use when: auditing current implementation against industry standards, checking compliance with best practices, benchmarking implementation quality, verifying a…
refactor
Multi-target refactoring orchestrator. Use when: cleaning up messy code/docs, simplifying code, restructuring documents, batch cleanup. Not for: new features (use feature-dev), bug fixes (use bug-fix), code understanding (use code-explore). Output: refactored code/docs + review gate.
pre-pr-audit
Pre-PR confidence audit with 5-dimension scoring. Use when: final check before commit/push/PR, evaluating PR readiness, assessing test quality + risk + coverage holistically. Triggers: pre-pr, readiness check, confidence audit, final verification, ready to PR, how confident. Not for: code review (use…
review-spec
Review technical spec documents from completeness, feasibility, risk, and code consistency perspectives.