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 rpraharaj/forward-deployed-engineer --skill verification-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rpraharaj/forward-deployed-engineerWrote 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/rpraharaj/forward-deployed-engineer/verification-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rpraharaj/forward-deployed-engineer/verification-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rpraharaj/forward-deployed-engineer/verification-plan.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 5.1 | $0.00099 | $0.02050 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00049 | $0.01025 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00410 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00205 |
Grade A, and why
verification-plan 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 8d 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 — 170 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification plan
Connecting what was promised to what was proven.
Why this exists
"The tests pass" is not verification. It means the assertions someone wrote earlier still hold — which says nothing about whether the thing that was asked for actually works. The two diverge constantly, because tests are written against the implementation as built and acceptance criteria were written against the need as understood.
The gap between them is where the awkward release conversations live: seven criteria agreed, five with automated tests, one checked manually by someone who has since moved teams, and one that nobody ever verified and nobody noticed.
This skill's real output is not the coverage table. It's the gap list — the criteria with no evidence. That list is short, uncomfortable, and the most useful thing you can put in front of a release decision.
When this applies
- Implementation underway or complete
- Before claiming a requirement is done
- Feeding
release-readiness - "How do we know this works?"
- Done is defined but how it will be checked isn't
When it doesn't
- No acceptance criteria exist yet — run
requirements-to-specfirst, or you're verifying against nothing - Pure spike or throwaway work
- Diagnosing a broken pipeline — that's
ci-forensics(fde-operate)
Prerequisites
.fde/03-requirements.md— the criteria being verified. Required. Without it this skill has no input..fde/03b-nfrs.md— non-functionals, if they exist.fde/06-blast-radius-*.md— the verification list it produced.fde/06b-change-log.md— what actually shipped
Procedure
1. Start from the criteria, never from the tests
Direction matters enormously.
Starting from the tests and asking "what do these prove?" produces a comfortable document that always looks complete, because every test verifies something. Starting from the criteria and asking "what proves this?" produces the gaps.
List every acceptance criterion from the spec. Add the verification items from blast-radius, and every NFR. That's your row set, and it's fixed before you look at a single test.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 170 lines · 99 tokens per session scan A 83dcbf5dffaa
verification-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository rpraharaj/forward-deployed-engineer (6 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 99 tokens to every session and 2,050 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
python-sdk
Implement or modify Python SDK behavior under python/composio, including tools, toolkits, sessions, auth configs, connected accounts, client integration, and shared Python models. Use for Python core runtime/API work; pair with python-testing and cross-sdk-parity when TypeScript must match.
typescript-providers
Implement, modify, test, or document TypeScript provider packages under ts/packages/providers, including framework adapters for OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, LangChain, Mastra, Vercel, LlamaIndex, Cloudflare, and Claude Agent SDK. Use for provider-specific TS work; do not use for core-only changes.
cli-e2e
Write, modify, or debug Docker-based Composio CLI end-to-end tests under ts/e2e-tests/cli, including binary invocation, fixture isolation, output assertions, and package manifests. Use for CLI E2E test suites only; use cli-command for CLI source implementation.
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
semgrep-rule-variant-creator
Creates language variants of existing Semgrep rules. Use when porting a Semgrep rule to specified target languages. Takes an existing rule and target languages as input, produces independent rule+test directories for each language.
iterative-development
TDD iteration loops using Claude Code Stop hooks - runs tests after each response, feeds failures back automatically.