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-root-closure/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-root-closure)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sponge-b0b/polaris/verify-root-closure"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sponge-b0b/polaris/verify-root-closure/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-root-closure"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sponge-b0b/polaris/verify-root-closure.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 | $0.00041 | $0.00492 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00246 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00098 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00049 |
Grade A, and why
verify-root-closure 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 5d 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 — 63 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify Root Closure — Compatibility Route
$verify-root-closure is no longer an independent certification authority.
The common ticket verifier owns semantic closure for both ordinary and Spec Review remediation tickets:
$verify-ticket-closure
Remediation adds the stable Root Blocker invariant, cumulative carried acceptance cells, verification obligations, same-root preservation obligations, protected roots, and Root Invariant Sweep to the same ticket acceptance universe. It does not create a second verifier or verdict.
Historical Invocation
If a human invokes $verify-root-closure from an older durable handoff/checkpoint:
- recover the referenced remediation ticket and current
$implement-ticketdurable state; - do not execute the historical root-certification algorithm locally;
- resume
$implement-ticketcompatibility routing; - migrate a valid legacy
<!-- implement-ticket-root-checkpoint:v1 -->into the v2 common closure checkpoint as required by current$implement-ticket; - emit or honor the current
$verify-ticket-closureauthorization/handoff for the exact current candidate.
The historical invocation may serve as user intent to continue verification, but it does not allow the $implement-ticket parent to self-certify and does not make an old root PASS current proof for a changed candidate.
Current Invocation
For a ticket already using the v2 closure checkpoint, return the canonical command:
$verify-ticket-closure - <Current Ticket Title> (<Ticket URL>)
and route through $implement-ticket's dispatcher-only continuation.
No Parallel Verdict
Do not emit:
ROOT CLOSURE: PASS
ROOT CLOSURE: FAIL
for new verification attempts.
The only semantic ticket verdict is:
TICKET CLOSURE: PASS
TICKET CLOSURE: FAIL
from one fresh non-mutating $verify-ticket-closure verifier.
Historical Root Closure Evidence remains durable history and may be consumed as evidence by the common verifier, never as current certification authority.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 5d ago Changed · -453 lines · -7 tokens per session aaa70e59276d
- 9d ago First seen · 516 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 418fee4cec6e
verify-root-closure is a skill published in the GitHub repository sponge-b0b/Polaris (4 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 492 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…