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 TAKEOFF69/codex-skills-kit --skill verify-honestlygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TAKEOFF69/codex-skills-kitWrote 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/takeoff69/codex-skills-kit/verify-honestly)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/takeoff69/codex-skills-kit/verify-honestly"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/takeoff69/codex-skills-kit/verify-honestly/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/takeoff69/codex-skills-kit/verify-honestly"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/takeoff69/codex-skills-kit/verify-honestly.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 | $0.00071 | $0.00930 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00372 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
verify-honestly 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 2mo 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 — 109 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify Honestly
Match every completion claim to evidence from the context that actually runs the work.
Core rule
Verify in the real execution context, then name the verification level reached. Do not silently substitute an easier context:
- source inspection for execution
- mocks for real data
- local behavior for production behavior
- build success for rendered UI correctness
- configuration text for an external probe
- intended output for the actual artifact
If exact context is unavailable, state what remains unverified and what would verify it.
Verification ladder
Use this vocabulary in completion reports:
code read– trace logic without executing it.local tests– run relevant unit or integration checks locally.browser pass– exercise rendered behavior in a browser, including relevant viewports.live data check– query real data or service state consumed by the change.production smoke– exercise deployed behavior end to end.
Name highest applicable level per shipped item. Lower levels need mention only when they explain residual risk. Ladder represents increasing runtime proximity, not a demand to run every level.
Proportionality
Choose cheapest probe that would catch likely failure.
- Scale depth with blast radius, irreversibility, and uncertainty – not session length.
- Treat green deterministic gate as evidence. Cite it instead of re-deriving same fact manually.
- Verify each unchanged property once.
- Prefer one consolidated verification pass over many redundant agents or repeated commands.
- Add independent verifier only when it contributes different evidence, failure lens, or required independence.
- If verification costs more than safely redoing work, say so and choose cheaper path.
Surface matrix
| Claim | Minimum useful evidence |
|---|---|
| Code behavior | Focused executable test or exact reproduction |
| UI behavior or layout | Browser pass at affected viewport and state |
| Database or data-shape behavior | Representative real rows or production-shaped fixture; name which |
| Pipeline or scheduled job | Run same command, environment, and working directory when accessible |
| Infrastructure state | External probe or observed event, not config grep alone |
| Artifact size, count, or contents | Measure generated artifact itself |
| Webhook, email, or integration | Captured real payload or test delivery through actual boundary |
| Production behavior | Deployed revision plus production smoke |
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 109 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A a5ed46d4590b
verify-honestly is a skill published in the GitHub repository TAKEOFF69/codex-skills-kit (8 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 930 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
working-effectively-with-legacy-code
Apply Michael Feathers-inspired legacy-code rules when changing hard-to-test code safely with characterization tests, seams, sprout methods, or wrap methods.
refactoring-guru
Apply Refactoring.Guru-inspired rules when diagnosing code smells, choosing refactoring techniques, and stopping cleanup before uncontrolled redesign.
refactoring
Apply Martin Fowler-inspired refactoring rules when improving existing code structure while preserving observable behavior.
template-formal
Strongly-typed multiagent ant-robot colony exemplar — ADTs, session-typed protocols, affine-discipline resource handles, storage-as-functor framing, Active-Inference-flavored decision loop, mypy-as-oracle negative controls.
template-reproducibility-audit
Deterministic reproducibility audit — fixed seeds, regenerate-from-clean, double-run diff before Zenodo/arXiv/release. USE WHEN outputs drift between runs, "worked on my machine", need regenerate-from-clean proof, or pre-release reproducibility check — even without naming docs/prompts.
generate-tests
Use when the user asks to generate, create, write, or add unit tests for existing code, or to cover a class, method, or file with tests — including Java targets using JUnit 5, Mockito, or AssertJ. Not for analysis-only requests that stop at listing test cases.