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 skills add synaptiai/synapti-marketplace --skill criterion-verification-mapgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/synaptiai/synapti-marketplaceWrote 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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/criterion-verification-map)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/criterion-verification-map"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/criterion-verification-map/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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/criterion-verification-map"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/criterion-verification-map.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 | $0.00115 | $0.01137 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00057 | $0.00568 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00227 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
criterion-verification-map 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 today.
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.
| api | "status code", "endpoint", "header" | curl/fetch | How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Criterion Verification Map
Contract
Iron law: every acceptance criterion is an eval source: at plan time it must produce a runnable verification command, or planning is blocked. Invoked by /flow:start at the Spec Validation Gate and PLAN (Phases 1-2) to classify each criterion and emit the task's verification fields, and at VERIFY (Phase 4) to run them and assemble the evidence bundle shaped by references/evidence-bundle-format.md. Returns task fields at plan time, the bundle at verify time. Permitted skips: none; an unmappable criterion is escalated through the Spec Validation Gate.
Classification
| Type | Signal words | Method |
|---|---|---|
| behavioral | "when X then Y", "should return" | unit/integration test |
| api | "status code", "endpoint", "header" | curl/fetch |
| ui | "displays", "renders", "layout" | screenshot + analysis |
| error | "error message", "invalid", "fails gracefully" | invalid-input test |
| performance | "within N ms", "timeout" | benchmark/timing |
| config | "config", "setting" | build/load test |
| data | "transforms", "output matches" | run with test data |
| contract | "schema", "type", "signature" | validator / type-check |
Plan-time task fields
Tasks are atomic (commands/start.md Phase 2). Emit per criterion:
Criterion: {full criterion text}
Verification type: {type from the table}
Verification command: {exact runnable command}
Expected evidence: {what successful output looks like}
Does NOT promise: {non-goals scoped to this criterion}
Risk areas: {risk-map rows whose area this criterion's logic touches, verbatim | none | (disabled by specFirst.riskMap)}
Does NOT promise comes from the journal's ### Non-goals, Risk areas from ### Risk map (references/specification-journal-format.md). implementation-planner adds one discriminating test per risk row (input, expected, source). Any unfillable field: escalate through the Spec Validation Gate.
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.
- today Changed · -115 lines · +10 tokens per session ead973132f76
- 7d ago First seen · 179 lines · 105 tokens per session scan A 0c33fea2257c
criterion-verification-map is a skill published in the GitHub repository synaptiai/synapti-marketplace (6 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 115 tokens to every session and 1,137 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
debug
Run /debug to find and fix a bug's root cause: a test failing for an unclear reason, /check verify finding a failure, or behavior being wrong. Runs a reproduce, localize, hypothesize, test, fix, verify loop, makes the minimal fix, and hands a regression test to /test. No features, no extra refactors.
check
Confirm a change before merge. /check verify drives the real app to prove behavior against the spec (every acceptance criterion met, every surface built). /check review runs a senior code review on a fresh model, one that did not write the code. Verify after /develop, review before a PR. Writes to docs/reviews/, never…
pipeline-efficiency-benchmark
A repeatable benchmark for comparing different versions of a development pipeline. It runs the same public tasks in isolated workspaces and records scores, tokens, time, tool calls, and cost.
x-adversarial-risk
A focused adversarial review of a software specification. It tries to find small counterexamples that would expose incorrect implementations, such as invalid state changes, crashes, duplicate actions, permission mistakes, or concurrent events.
x-qdev
A compact development workflow for a small, clearly defined code change. It keeps the requirement, initially failing tests, implementation, and real verification results in one task document, following TDD, or test-driven development.
x-qa-gate
A quality-review gate for completed development tasks. It checks the code against the request, design, tests, verification evidence, and current changes, using different review rounds for different risk levels.