vet is a software supply-chain security tool that examines open-source packages for malware, vulnerabilities, license issues, and policy violations. Developers use it to scan package manifests, repositories, container images, or SBOMs and to enforce security policies in CI/CD systems.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to safedep/vet. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/safedep/vet/v2/.claude/skills/vet-policy-authoring/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/safedep/vetWrote 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/safedep/vet/vet-policy-authoring)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/safedep/vet/vet-policy-authoring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/safedep/vet/vet-policy-authoring/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/safedep/vet/vet-policy-authoring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/safedep/vet/vet-policy-authoring.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00067 | $0.00874 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00350 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00175 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
vet-policy-authoring 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 — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Write and test a vet policy
A vet policy is a YAML file with version: 2, a list of rules and a list of suppressions. A
rule has an id, a CEL condition in when and an action, fail or warn. A suppression names
an id, a purl or a control, a reason, and an optional expires date. A path suppression
also names a control. vet reads a policy only with --policy FILE or the policy.file config key.
Rules for you
- Draft the policy in a new file that the user names, for example
vet-policy.yml. Do not change a policy file that exists unless the user asks. - Never install the policy. Do not set
policy.file, and do not edit a CI workflow, a git hook or the vet config. Tell the user the command that applies the policy, and let the user run it. - Read the fields from the schema. Do not guess a field name or a control id.
- Every suppression has a reason that a reviewer can check. Give it an
expiresdate when the user knows when the fix comes.
Steps
- Read the input of a rule:
vet policy schema get. A rule readsfinding,packageandmanifest. An optional field with no value is absent, so test it withhas(), for examplehas(package.days_since_publish) && package.days_since_publish < 5. Compare a package name withpackage.is("name"), not with==, and a version withpackage.version_cmp("1.2.3"). Both apply the rule of the ecosystem:package.is("python-dateutil")matchespython.dateutil, andpackage.version_cmp("2.0") < 0holds for1.0rc1. An ecosystem with no version order, such as GitHub Actions, gives no answer topackage.version_cmp. A condition that needs the answer does not match, but CEL still decidesa || bwhenbis true. - Read the control ids and their default severities:
vet policy control list -o json. - Start from the starter file when the user has no policy:
vet policy init vet-policy.yml. - Write the rules. Keep one idea in each rule, and give it a
description. - Check the file:
vet policy validate vet-policy.yml -o json. Fix every problem that it lists. - Test the policy against a saved scan.
vet report list -o jsonlists the scans. With no scan, runvet scan . -o jsononce. Then runvet report show last --policy vet-policy.yml -o json. Thetrailer.gateobject holds the outcome, the rules that failed and the finding ids. Each finding that a rule or--fail-onmatched has agateobject: theaction(failorwarn), therules, thefail_onvalue and thehelpandlinkof the first rule. The saved scan does not change. - Show the user the policy, the gate outcome, and the findings that each rule matched or that a
suppression hid. Then give the command that applies it:
vet scan . --policy vet-policy.yml.
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 Changed 769bccefbf3e
- 7d ago First seen · 53 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 8fded3798581
vet-policy-authoring is a skill published in the GitHub repository safedep/vet (1,113 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 874 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-10-10.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-draft-summary
Draft a concise pull request handoff after substantive repository changes are finished or ready for review. Trigger when wrapping up code, test, script, workflow, release, security, documentation-with-behavior-impact, or template customization changes and the user needs a PR title/body grounded in the real diff…
workflow-validation
Use when validating repository workflows after changes to Docker-first Makefile targets, Dockerfiles, scripts, CI, release packaging, smoke tests, or documentation alignment. Do not use for repo redesign, GitHub-policy-only changes, or instruction-only skill edits with no workflow impact.
supply-chain-security-scanner
AI-powered software supply chain security auditing skill for agentic platforms. Performs comprehensive dependency vulnerability scanning across npm, PyPI, Maven, Go modules, Cargo, and container images. Generates SBOMs (Software Bill of Materials) in SPDX and CycloneDX formats using Syft and Grype. Validates license…
golang-testing
Go testing best practices including table-driven tests, test helpers, benchmarking, race detection, coverage analysis, and integration testing patterns. Use when writing or improving Go tests.
ci
Configure Ginkgo for continuous integration — the recommended CLI flag set and the rationale for each flag (-r -p --randomize-all --randomize-suites --fail-on-pending --fail-on-empty --keep-going --cover --race --trace --json-report --timeout --poll-progress-after/-interval), invoking via go run to pin the CLI to…
debugging-failures
Diagnose a failing Ginkgo suite as an agent — always run with --json-report into a predictable temp/gitignored location, read the terminal verdict line, then use jq to extract structured failure details (name, message, file:line, panic value, captured logs). Covers the panicked-vs-failed trap, panic locations pointing…