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-spec-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-spec-closure)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sponge-b0b/polaris/verify-spec-closure"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sponge-b0b/polaris/verify-spec-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-spec-closure"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sponge-b0b/polaris/verify-spec-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 | $0.00031 | $0.02068 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00827 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00414 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00207 |
Grade A, and why
verify-spec-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 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 — 283 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify Spec Closure
$verify-spec-closure is the fresh non-mutating independent implementation-conformance
verifier dispatched by $verify-spec.
Its independence is adversarial proof independence, not semantic-authority independence.
Frozen deterministic Spec cells
↓
independent falsifiers / evidence
↓
PASS or FAIL
The verifier never reconstructs the contract from prose, ADRs, wiki pages, ticket prose, or implementation shape.
Invocation integrity
Run only in a genuinely fresh, non-mutating verifier context.
Receive from $verify-spec:
- Spec identity and exact body/hash;
- fixed baseline, branch, exact stable HEAD;
- exact deterministic
$spec-contractresult; - complete ordered cells and
cell_hashvalues; - exact CCL addresses for every
OBL-*; - current valid
ticket-coverage-manifest:v2and routed tickets; - concise implementation/evidence pointers;
- terminal parent technical/delegated gate results;
- prior unresolved verifier findings on retry, when applicable.
Verify those transport identities before semantic work. Any candidate mutation during the run invalidates the attempt; emit neither PASS nor FAIL.
Do not mutate repository/tracker/Git state, invoke remediation, or delegate.
Contract boundary
The exact supplied cell universe is authoritative for this attempt:
OBL-* material semantic contract, exact CCL addresses
IMP-* private/mechanical implementation obligations
TEST-* explicit proof obligations
EXC-* exclusion guardrails
Do not:
- add/remove a cell;
- infer hidden obligations from narrative prose;
- rebuild a Source Unit Inventory;
- derive
ARCHSRC-*/NORM-*rows; - reopen architecture/Decision prose to change an OBL meaning;
- treat implementation behavior as evidence that the contract "must have meant" more.
Contract strength is part of this boundary. A verifier may not turn an allowed state into a forbidden state merely to make a proof stronger. Required behavior remains required, forbidden behavior remains forbidden, and explicitly optional/permitted behavior must remain permitted. A TEST/EXC proof is subordinate to the exact OBL/CCL semantics it proves; it does not acquire independent authority to narrow the allowed implementation state space.
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 Changed · +45 lines 57e7a8ce3797
- 8d ago Changed · -188 lines · -21 tokens per session 07d2025d3450
- 1mo ago Changed · -2 lines c742794c0b44
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines 5387650461e4
- 1mo ago Changed · +72 lines f3bf1369c7fb
- 1mo ago Changed · +35 lines f78c7821e18d
- 1mo ago Changed · +9 lines b3e8e4de7fe3
- 1mo ago Changed · +123 lines 85c1dea357b8
- 1mo ago First seen · 187 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A f4c94235a695
verify-spec-closure is a skill published in the GitHub repository sponge-b0b/Polaris (4 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 2,068 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…