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 t1djani/servo --skill close-the-booksgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/t1djani/servoWrote 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/t1djani/servo/close-the-books)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/t1djani/servo/close-the-books"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/t1djani/servo/close-the-books/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/t1djani/servo/close-the-books"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/t1djani/servo/close-the-books.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 | $0.00047 | $0.00395 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00198 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00079 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00040 |
Grade A, and why
close-the-books 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 10d 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.
What it actually says
close-the-books
Do not declare work done; reconcile it. Like counting the instruments before closing — the count at the end must match the commitments at the start, or something was left inside. This is a conservation check: the artifact's opening inventory (its acceptance criteria and the invariants it promised not to break) must all be accounted for, with evidence.
The failure this prevents: an agent asserting "done / fixed / passing" with confidence it has not earned, because it never ran the check.
Procedure
-
Recover the opening inventory. From the plan and the manifest: the
acceptancecriteria (what "done" was defined as) and theinvariantsthe work promised not to break. -
Tick each acceptance criterion — with evidence. For every criterion, run the actual check (the test, the command, the observation) and confirm it passes. Quote the evidence. A criterion with no run is not ticked.
-
Re-verify each invariant. Confirm nothing the work promised not to break is broken. Run the relevant gate (
servo-gateagainstinvariants) if judgment is needed; otherwise check directly. -
Account for every item. Every criterion ticked, every invariant verified, each with its evidence. If any item cannot be accounted for, the books do not close — the work is not done. Report the open item plainly.
Rule
Evidence before assertion, always. "It should work" is not closing the books. Run the check, quote the output, then close. If a check failed or was skipped, say so — do not round up to "done".
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 25 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A b29ac059de21
close-the-books is a skill published in the GitHub repository t1djani/servo (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 395 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
craft
Engineering standards for any code work on any stack — writing production code, slicing and reviewing PRs, authoring tests, running gates, merging, and running agent fleets. Load before touching code, not after review flags it.
completion-verification
Verifies that work is actually complete before it is claimed to be — running the checks, reading the output, and confirming the original request was satisfied rather than approximated. Use this before saying something is done, fixed, or passing; before committing or opening a pull request; and whenever a claim of…
specify-incremental
Decompose a single-feature specification into a linear, phase-by-phase implementation plan. Use this for medium-complexity work — single feature, one or two components — where transparent human-in-the-loop phase review is preferred over factory automation.
testing
Writing effective tests and running them successfully. Covers layer-specific mocking rules, test design principles, debugging failures, and flaky test management. Use when writing tests, reviewing test quality, or debugging test failures.
quiz-me
Quiz the user on root cause and intended fix BEFORE writing any non-trivial code, then verify comprehension of every change after. Use when the user asks for a bug fix, refactor, or feature and wants to stay technically sharp instead of vibe-coding. Also use when the user says "quiz me", "don't let me vibe code", or…
run-smoke-tests
Run Playwright smoke tests, debug failures, and verify fixes. Use for smoke, e2e, Playwright, or pre-ship browser verification.