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 saski/arnesto --skill fic-validate-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/saski/arnestoWrote 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/saski/arnesto/fic-validate-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/saski/arnesto/fic-validate-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saski/arnesto/fic-validate-plan/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/saski/arnesto/fic-validate-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saski/arnesto/fic-validate-plan.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 | $0.00036 | $0.00214 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00086 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00043 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00021 |
Grade A, and why
fic-validate-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 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.
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.
What it actually says
FIC Validate Plan
Act as a senior XP engineer validating execution quality against an implementation plan.
Workflow
- Read the implementation plan end to end.
- Extract expected file changes, phase outcomes, and success criteria.
- Gather implementation evidence from code and history.
- Run plan-defined automated checks.
- Compare expected vs actual outcomes per phase.
Validation Focus
- Phase completion accuracy
- Regression risk
- Missing scope items
- Deviations from plan intent
- Remaining manual validation items
Output
Produce a concise validation report with:
- Implementation status by phase
- Automated verification results
- Deviations and risks
- Manual verification checklist
- Clear pass/partial/fail conclusion
Completion
End with:
- Validation status summary
- Blocking issues (if any)
- Smallest next corrective action
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 · 43 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 902c471963f7
fic-validate-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository saski/arnesto (6 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed Unlicense. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 214 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
readonly-review
Run a no-network read-only review practice with two explorer steps and one synthesis step.
repo-contracts-and-boundaries
Use when turning architecture, layering, ownership, dependency direction, schemas, structural metrics, quality thresholds, baselines, allowlists, or generated quality snapshots into repository checks.
address-pr-comments
Work through the review comments on a pull request: check each point against the code, make the changes that are right, answer the ones that are not, and hold every reply for approval before it is posted.
code-refiner
Deep code simplification and refactoring preserving behavior across Python, Go, TypeScript, Rust. Targets complexity, anti-patterns, readability debt. Triggers on: "simplify this code", "refactor for clarity", "reduce complexity", "make this more readable", "tech debt cleanup", "too much nesting". NOT for deepening…
package-optimizer
Evaluate one existing package or bounded package family from recorded evaluator evidence and a capability profile, then propose retain, simplify, strengthen, retire, or inconclusive without editing. Use when optimizing a skill, agent, hook, rule, command, utility, or preset; evaluating whether package detail is…
review-skill
Review a proposed Agent Skill for structural validity and content quality before publishing. Runs the skill-validator CLI to check for structural issues, scores the skill with an LLM judge, and interprets results to advise authors on what to address. Use when a user wants to review, validate, or quality-check an Agent…