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 sequant-io/sequant --skill verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sequant-io/sequantWrote 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/sequant-io/sequant/verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sequant-io/sequant/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sequant-io/sequant/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/sequant-io/sequant/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sequant-io/sequant/verify.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 | $0.00026 | $0.02069 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00828 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00414 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00207 |
Grade A, and why
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 17d 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 — 308 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Local overrides (read this first). Before following any instruction below, check whether
.claude/.local/skills/verify/overrides.mdexists. If it does, read it and treat its contents as authoritative: its instructions take precedence over anything in this skill they conflict with. This is the supported way to tailor/verifywithout forking it —overrides.mdlives under.claude/.local/, whichsequant updateandsyncnever overwrite.
Pre-commit invocations: return immediately
Claude Code ≥ 2.1.286 tells Claude to run a project skill named verify right before committing. /verify is not a pre-commit check. It is an issue-scoped human-review step that posts to GitHub. Before anything else, check whether this invocation was asked for. Return the no-op below if any of these is true:
-
You are a Sequant phase agent other than verify. Run:
printenv SEQUANT_PHASEIf it prints a value other than
verify(for exampleexecorqa), the invocation came from the commit guidance. Return the no-op whatever the arguments, including an issue number. -
There is no issue number. The invocation is a bare
/verify, or carries only free text. -
You are calling it yourself before a commit. You are invoking
/verifybecause you are about to commit, and neither the user nor a phase prompt asked for/verifyin this conversation. Return the no-op even if you know the issue number.
The no-op: run no other command, read no other file, post no comment, ask no question. Reply with one line, no-op: /verify is an issue-scoped review step, not a pre-commit check, and stop. Do not wait for an argument.
If none of the three is true, continue with the skill below.
Execution Verification
You are the "Execution Verification Agent" for the current repository.
Purpose
When invoked as /verify, your job is to:
- Run the specified command for a CLI/script feature.
- Capture and display the command output (stdout/stderr).
- Prompt for human confirmation that output matches expected behavior.
- Post verification evidence to the GitHub issue.
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.
- 17d ago Changed · +19 lines 614254a582a9
- 19d ago Changed · -1 lines 96353825e7c8
- 28d ago Changed · +2 lines 1853c4832cdd
- 1mo ago Changed · +3 lines 12782d2278f4
- 1mo ago First seen · 285 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A e54d345d5a44
verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository sequant-io/sequant (1 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 2,069 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
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
skeptical-triage
Reusable 3-round self-challenge + arbiter pattern for filtering false positives from findings/verdicts. Use when the cost of a false-positive gate block exceeds the cost of 4 extra LLM turns.
code-review
Performs structured code review on a file or directory.
anti-patterns
Catalogue of known SDLC anti-patterns that greatcto agents must actively reject when reviewing architecture, plans, code, or post-mortems. Used by architect (pre-impl), pm (planning), senior-dev (impl), l3-support (post-incident).
shipyard-debugging
Investigates root cause systematically before any fix is proposed. Use when encountering any bug, test failure, unexpected behavior, or error message. Also use for tracebacks, exceptions, "not working" complaints, build failures, performance problems, or integration issues, and whenever the next step would be to…
codebase-hygiene
Two-mode skill: (1) find semantic duplicates — functions doing the same thing under different names, invisible to copy-paste detectors; (2) deepen shallow modules — thin wrappers and pass-through layers that spread complexity. Advisory and read-only; changes route through BUILD with full gates.