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 agentmods add skills/shousper/claude-kit/verifynpx skills add shousper/claude-kit --skill verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shousper/claude-kitWhat 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 | $0.00088 | $0.01074 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00044 | $0.00537 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00215 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00107 |
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 3d 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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Before Completion
Overview
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.
Hard Gate: No Claims Without Fresh Evidence
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes. Stale results from previous runs don't count — code may have changed since then, and re-running is cheap compared to shipping a false claim.
The Verification Steps
Before claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
- Identify: What command proves this claim?
- Run: Execute the full command (fresh, complete)
- Read: Full output, check exit code, count failures
- Verify: Does output confirm the claim?
- If no: state actual status with evidence
- If yes: state claim with evidence
- Then claim: Only after steps 1-4
Skipping steps means the claim is unsupported. Unsupported claims erode trust — your human partner can't distinguish "I checked and it passes" from "I assume it passes" unless you show evidence.
What Counts as Evidence
| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
Recognizing Unverified Claims
Watch for these patterns in your own output — they indicate you're about to make a claim without evidence:
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!")
- About to commit/push/PR without running checks
- Trusting agent success reports without independent verification
- Relying on partial verification (linter passed, so build must be fine)
- Any wording implying success without having run the command
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 123 lines · 88 tokens per session scan A 5f9910a0f95f
verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository shousper/claude-kit (4 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 88 tokens to every session and 1,074 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…