Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to sponge-b0b/Polaris. 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/sponge-b0b/Polaris/main/.agents/skills/verify-code/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sponge-b0b/PolarisWrote 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/sponge-b0b/polaris/verify-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sponge-b0b/polaris/verify-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sponge-b0b/polaris/verify-code/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/sponge-b0b/polaris/verify-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sponge-b0b/polaris/verify-code.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 | $0.00040 | $0.03729 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.01492 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00746 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00373 |
Grade A, and why
verify-code 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 24d 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 — 359 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Targeted Codebase Verification Standards
Objective
Verify changes introduced by the current workspace or active ticket without broadening execution into repository-wide verification except for explicitly repository-wide delegated invariant gates such as $verify-architecture when applicable.
$coding-standards owns coding policy. Verify applicable requirements without duplicating that skill.
Repository-wide discovery is required when necessary to prove that an authoritative contract change has no stale internal consumers. Broaden discovery, not verification indiscriminately.
Contract Transition and Consumer Closure manifests are supporting technical evidence. $verify-code does not spawn or become a separate semantic certifier; when semantic judgment is required to certify their completeness during a ticket lifecycle, that judgment belongs to the single fresh $verify-ticket-closure verifier.
Guardrails
- Verify only the active change and directly affected tests except where an explicitly delegated invariant skill owns broader scope.
- Resolve target files before verification.
- When a shared contract changes, discover its complete affected consumer set before declaring verification scope complete.
- Do not refactor unrelated code, weaken configuration, or add pass-only suppressions.
- Shell permissions do not authorize broader verification.
$verify-architecture, when applicable, is intentionally whole-suite; do not narrow that child gate to changed files merely because Ruff, Mypy, and behavioral tests are targeted.- Do not bypass repository command guards.
- Deterministic whitespace defects owned by the active change are mechanical fixes: fix them, rerun the check, and continue without asking.
- Do not modify semantic content while fixing whitespace.
- Unrelated pre-existing whitespace remains report-only.
1. Identify Targets
If called by $implement-ticket with a ticket baseline, include committed Python changes since that baseline:
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.
- 24d ago Changed · +34 lines f5255ebc757e
- 1mo ago Changed · +9 lines 3516ba99a96f
- 1mo ago Changed · +32 lines · +7 tokens per session 008d05334214
- 1mo ago Changed · +41 lines 7bce8e147062
- 1mo ago First seen · 243 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A dd1ff17c83ab
verify-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository sponge-b0b/Polaris (4 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 3,729 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
semgrep-rule-variant-creator
Creates language variants of existing Semgrep rules. Use when porting a Semgrep rule to specified target languages. Takes an existing rule and target languages as input, produces independent rule+test directories for each language.
plugin-review
Review plugin quality with tiered checks and dependency scoping. Use for PR and pre-release audits.