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 The-Artificer-of-Ciphers-LLC/skills-from-the-artificer --skill trust-but-verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/The-Artificer-of-Ciphers-LLC/skills-from-the-artificerWrote 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/the-artificer-of-ciphers-llc/skills-from-the-artificer/trust-but-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/the-artificer-of-ciphers-llc/skills-from-the-artificer/trust-but-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/the-artificer-of-ciphers-llc/skills-from-the-artificer/trust-but-verify/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/the-artificer-of-ciphers-llc/skills-from-the-artificer/trust-but-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/the-artificer-of-ciphers-llc/skills-from-the-artificer/trust-but-verify.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 | $0.00176 | $0.02638 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00088 | $0.01319 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00035 | $0.00528 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00264 |
Grade A, and why
trust-but-verify 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 12d 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 — 107 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Trust but Verify
A subagent's report is a lead, not a fact. You trust it enough to investigate — never enough to act on unread.
When you delegate work to a subagent, what comes back is a claim about reality, filtered through a model that summarized, paraphrased, and sometimes hallucinated. The agent may be right. It may be confidently wrong. You cannot tell which from the report alone — the wrong ones look exactly as fluent as the right ones.
This skill is the discipline of closing that gap: before you build on, repeat, or report any claim an agent handed you, you re-open the primary source and confirm the claim against it. Every claim. With a citation.
The one rule everything else serves
No claim is verified until you have opened a primary source that confirms it and can quote where.
Two corollaries that do the real work:
- Inference is not verification. "That's how this library usually works", "the function name implies it returns null", "that lines up with what I'd expect" — these are guesses wearing a lab coat. They produce an
UNVERIFIED, never aVERIFIED. - The agent's own words are not a source. "The agent said the timeout is 30s" verifies nothing. The agent is the thing under audit. The source is the config file where
30sis written.
If you cannot find a source, the honest verdict is UNVERIFIED — and you say so out loud. Silently dropping an unsourced claim is worse than flagging it, because a clean report reads as "all confirmed."
The loop
For a returned report, work claim by claim:
-
Atomize. Break the report into discrete, individually-checkable assertions. "The retry logic is in
cleanup.ts, runs 3 times, and was added in #493" is three claims (location, count, provenance), each with its own source and its own verdict. Bundled claims hide the false one inside the true ones. -
Classify → pick the source. Each claim has a type, and each type has an authoritative source (see the ladder below). A claim about code is settled by the code, not by docs about the code. A claim about a library's behavior is settled by that library's docs or source, not by the codebase that calls it.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 107 lines · 176 tokens per session scan A acf8709e1d48
trust-but-verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository The-Artificer-of-Ciphers-LLC/skills-from-the-artificer (4 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 176 tokens to every session and 2,638 once invoked, about $0.0009 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
investigate
Systematically investigate bugs, test failures, build errors, performance issues, or unexpected behavior by cycling through characterize-isolate-hypothesize-test steps. Use when the user asks to "investigate this bug", "debug this", "figure out why this fails", "find the root cause", "why is this broken"…
audit
Project-wide health audit pipeline that fans out to all analysis skills in parallel, evaluates findings, and produces a unified report at .turbo/audit.md. Use when the user asks to "audit the project", "run a full audit", "project health check", "audit my code", "codebase audit", or "comprehensive review".
consult-oracle
Consult ChatGPT Pro via ChatGPT browser automation for problems that resist standard approaches. Use when stuck on a very hard problem, when standard approaches have failed, when multiple debugging attempts haven't worked, or when the user says "ask the oracle", "consult oracle", "consult chatgpt", "I'm completely…
find-dead-code
Find dead code using parallel subagent analysis and optional CLI tools, treating code only referenced from tests as dead. Use when the user asks to "find dead code", "find unused code", "find unused exports", "find unreferenced functions", "clean up dead code", or "what code is unused". Analysis-only — does not modify…
polish-code
Stage, format, lint, test, review, smoke test, and re-run itself until stable. Use when the user asks to "polish code", "refine code", "iterate on code quality", "review loop", "clean up, test, and review loop", or "run the polish loop".
simplify-code
Run a multi-agent review of changed files for scope, reuse, quality, efficiency, clarity, and altitude issues followed by fixes. Use when the user asks to "simplify code", "review changed code", "check for code reuse", "review code quality", "review efficiency", "simplify changes", "clean up code", "refactor changes"…