Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add sentasity/cadence/plugin install cadenceWrote 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/sentasity/cadence/c-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sentasity/cadence/c-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sentasity/cadence/c-check.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 | $0.00100 | $0.02951 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00050 | $0.01476 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00590 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00295 |
Grade A, and why
c-check 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 7d 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 — 172 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/c-check
You review designs and plans for substance — does this make sense, does it hang together, are there gaps, are there silent assumptions that won't survive contact with reality. You do NOT review code quality (that's /c-find-bugs). One exception: when the target is a plan, you narrowly read code to verify cited paths/symbols/imports exist — enforcing /c-plan's "Codebase verification" rule from the outside.
Invocation forms
/c-check <design-folder-path>— review full design./c-check <plan-folder-path>— review full plan./c-check <single-doc-path>— review one child doc in isolation./c-check --format <path>— also run Cadence format compliance./c-check --any <path>— accept paths outside Cadence's expected folder structure (e.g. imported designs from elsewhere).
Entry contract
Refuses when: the target does not resolve to an artifact; OR the target is in a Cadence-managed location and the resolved artifact lacks the expected structure (no overview, missing frontmatter) — check existence and structure via skills/_shared/storage-resolution.md (artifact_exists) in the active backend — unless --any is set.
Default mode: substance checks
Each check runs as its own sub-agent in parallel (via Task tool). Each receives the target doc(s) + the check's specific prompt.
| Check | What it asks |
|---|---|
| Accuracy | Do the claims in this doc match related artifacts (linked design ↔ plan, internal cross-references)? |
| Internal consistency | Do sections contradict each other? Do decisions in the overview match what children actually say? |
| Completeness | Are there obvious gaps — missing failure modes, undefined terms, untouched concerns (security, observability, perf)? |
| Hidden assumptions | What is the doc taking for granted that won't be true? (e.g. "user is logged in" without saying when login happens.) |
| Scope discipline | Does the design/plan stay within brainstormed scope, or has it crept? |
| Internal logic | Logical errors in proposed flow — race conditions, infinite loops, ordering violations. |
| Open-questions check (Invariant 1) | Any callouts that read like open questions ("should we…", "we might…", "TBD")? |
| Codebase verification (plans only) | Do the file paths, line ranges, symbols, and imports cited in the plan exist in the current code? Per /c-plan's "Codebase verification" rule: ls/Read every Modify and Test path; Read cited line ranges; grep every symbol and import path; check codebase conventions match. Citation that doesn't resolve = Critical (plan unexecutable as written). Range drift that still points at the right function = Important. Convention mismatch (_lambda vs lambda_, etc.) = Important. Skipped for designs. |
| DAG soundness (plans only) | Do two tasks that reference each other's Touches: files or declared symbols have a Depends: edge between them? A missing edge between mutually-referencing tasks is a parallel-execution hazard the Touches: guard can't catch — flag as Important (the engine could co-schedule them and the dependent task would run against absent code). Also flag any Depends: cycle as Critical (plan unexecutable). Skipped for designs. |
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 172 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 00e9b8b1cdd1
c-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository sentasity/cadence (1 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 100 tokens to every session and 2,951 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
self-improve
Self-improve this skills repo — surface and (safely) apply quality improvements across four parallel read-only lenses (Clarity, Leanness, Coverage, Ergonomics). Sibling of /self-audit — audit fixes rule violations, improve raises quality where no rule is broken. Local meta-skill, independent of the /task: pipeline.
self-audit
Self-audit this skills repo against CLAUDE.md invariants, the artifact contract, and README/CLAUDE.md/docs sync via three parallel read-only subagents. Local meta-skill — independent of the /task: pipeline.
grill
Interrogate a plan or decision one question at a time before capture, keeping a decision-plus-rationale ledger, then route to the right capture skill.
batch
Dispatch a night's batch of Todo tickets — one worktree and one pull request each — and leave a morning summary. Run explicitly; never inferred.
cleanup
Clean up after a merged pull request — return to the base branch, remove the worktree, delete the branch, sweep other stale branches and worktrees, and report tracker state. Use after a merge or whenever asked what is left over.
prep
Spec a ticket before it is dispatched. Brainstorms it, decides everything it can recommend an answer for, asks a present human about the little that survives, and leaves the spec, the decisions and anything still open as one ticket comment. No worktree, no branch, no pull request, and the ticket stays where it was.