linkedin-mcp-server is a local MCP server that gives compatible AI assistants access to LinkedIn through a logged-in browser session. Agents can use it to inspect profiles and companies, search jobs, retrieve job details, and manage certain LinkedIn interactions. The catalogue add-ons operate this server and expose its LinkedIn workflows to agents.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server. 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/stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server/main/.agents/skills/3-verify-pr-fix/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-serverWrote 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/stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server/3-verify-pr-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server/3-verify-pr-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server/3-verify-pr-fix/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/stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server/3-verify-pr-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server/3-verify-pr-fix.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 3 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Tool Misuse · line 76 Tool parameters are crafted to achieve unintended or unsafe behavior. Parameter abuse can bypass intended safety checks (e.g. shell=True, --force, dangerous glob patterns).Fix: Validate all tool parameters against an allowlist. Reject dangerous parameter values (shell=True, --force, -rf /) and use safe defaults.
- medium Data Exfiltration · line 109 Data is being sent to an external URL. This could be legitimate telemetry or data exfiltration. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Verify the destination URL is trusted and necessary. Remove or replace with documented APIs. Ensure no secrets, tokens, or PII are transmitted.
- medium Data Exfiltration · line 119 Data is being sent to an external URL. This could be legitimate telemetry or data exfiltration. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Verify the destination URL is trusted and necessary. Remove or replace with documented APIs. Ensure no secrets, tokens, or PII are transmitted.
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 | $0.00077 | $0.03409 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.01705 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00682 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00341 |
Grade A, and why
3-verify-pr-fix scanned grade A with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
curl -s -D /tmp/verify-pr-$PR-headers -X POST http://127.0.0.1:$PORT/mcp \ Copies of this mod
5 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- 3-verify-pr-fix — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- 3-verify-pr-fix — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- 3-verify-pr-fix — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- 3-verify-pr-fix — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- 3-verify-pr-fix — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 201 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify a Candidate PR Actually Fixes the Issue
Goal: take a PR number, check it out cleanly, re-run the same tool call that failed on main, compare the outputs, and produce a verdict — "fixes", "fixes but with concerns", "does not fix", or "cannot run". Pair with /2-repro-issue (which produces the baseline). No edits, no merges, no pushes.
Phase 1 — Resolve the PR and its linked issue
# Accept "498", "#498", or "https://github.com/.../pull/498" — extract the digits only
PR=$(echo "$ARGUMENTS" | sed -E 's|.*/||; s|#||g' | grep -oE '^[0-9]+' | head -1)
[ -z "$PR" ] && { echo "Invalid input: '$ARGUMENTS'. Pass a PR number or URL." >&2; exit 1; }
REPO=stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server
gh pr view $PR --repo $REPO --json title,body,baseRefName,headRefName,headRepositoryOwner,mergeable,mergeStateStatus,additions,deletions,changedFiles,maintainerCanModify,statusCheckRollup
Extract the linked issue number from the PR body (Closes #, Fixes #, Resolves #, or plain #N). Call it ISSUE. If multiple, ask the user which one is the verification target.
Phase 2 — Pick up the baseline + request metadata
/2-repro-issue writes two files for each issue:
/tmp/repro-issue-<ISSUE>-main.json— the on-main response baseline/tmp/repro-issue-<ISSUE>-meta.json— the{tool, arguments}used to call it
Both must exist. The meta file is how this skill replays the exact same call instead of guessing tool and args from the response body.
ls -la /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-main.json /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-meta.json 2>&1
# Both files must exist AND be non-empty. ls alone never fails the script, so
# guard each path before we touch the PR branch or LinkedIn.
[ -s /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-main.json ] || { echo "Missing or empty response baseline. Re-run /2-repro-issue $ISSUE." >&2; exit 1; }
[ -s /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-meta.json ] || { echo "Missing or empty meta file. Re-run /2-repro-issue $ISSUE." >&2; exit 1; }
TOOL=$(jq -r .tool /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-meta.json)
ARGS_JSON=$(jq -c .arguments /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-meta.json)
echo "Replaying: $TOOL($ARGS_JSON)"
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 201 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 156cac8c102f
3-verify-pr-fix is a skill published in the GitHub repository stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server (3,384 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 3,409 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
live-audit
Audit steam-games-mcp — build/test/lint gate, live MCP tool edge-case sweep (input validation, SteamID64/vanity/appid edge cases, key-gating), and source-level code review. Use when asked to test/audit the published or just-fixed steam-games-mcp package, hunt for bugs/edge cases, or repeat "the same kind of testing as…
tool-description-check
Self-check a new or edited MCP tool description/field .describe() text before committing — verify every behavioral claim against live testing or source, check for contradictions with sibling tools, and score against Glama's Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS) rubric. Use whenever a tool description or schema field…
gitnexus-pr-review
Use when the user wants to review a pull request, understand what a PR changes, assess risk of merging, or check for missing test coverage. Examples: "Review this PR", "What does PR #42 change?", "Is this PR safe to merge?".
gitnexus-impact-analysis
Use when the user wants to know what will break if they change something, or needs safety analysis before editing code. Examples: "Is it safe to change X?", "What depends on this?", "What will break?".
gitnexus-refactoring
Use when the user wants to rename, extract, split, move, or restructure code safely. Examples: "Rename this function", "Extract this into a module", "Refactor this class", "Move this to a separate file".
liveagent-code-review
Review an open GitHub pull request or the current local branch and working tree with parallel, independent reviewers and evidence-based validation. Use when the user asks for code review, invokes the Code Review action from Git Review, or explicitly mentions this skill.