Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to toonight/get-shit-done-for-antigravity. 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/toonight/get-shit-done-for-antigravity/main/.agents/skills/empirical-validation/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/toonight/get-shit-done-for-antigravityWrote 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/toonight/get-shit-done-for-antigravity/empirical-validation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/toonight/get-shit-done-for-antigravity/empirical-validation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/toonight/get-shit-done-for-antigravity/empirical-validation/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/toonight/get-shit-done-for-antigravity/empirical-validation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/toonight/get-shit-done-for-antigravity/empirical-validation.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
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 →
- medium Data Exfiltration · line 49 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 | $0.00019 | $0.00597 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00298 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00119 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00060 |
Grade B, and why
empirical-validation scanned grade B with 2 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 11d 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.
Sends data to an external URLmediumData exfiltration
A POST to an outside endpoint may be telemetry or may be exfiltration; either way the mod talks to somewhere, and you should know where.
curl -X POST http://localhost:3000/api/login -d '{"email":"[email protected]"}' Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
curl -X POST http://localhost:3000/api/login -d '{"email":"[email protected]"}' How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Empirical Validation
Core Principle
"The code looks correct" is NOT validation.
Every change must be verified with empirical evidence before being marked complete.
Validation Methods by Change Type
| Change Type | Required Validation | Tool |
|---|---|---|
| UI Changes | Screenshot showing expected visual state | browser_subagent |
| API Endpoints | Command showing correct response | run_command |
| Build/Config | Successful build or test output | run_command |
| Data Changes | Query showing expected data state | run_command |
| File Operations | File listing or content verification | run_command |
Validation Protocol
Before Marking Any Task "Done"
-
Identify Verification Criteria
- What should be true after this change?
- How can that be observed?
-
Execute Verification
- Run the appropriate command or action
- Capture the output/evidence
-
Document Evidence
- Add to
.gsd/JOURNAL.mdunder the task - Include actual output, not just "passed"
- Add to
-
Confirm Against Criteria
- Does evidence match expected outcome?
- If not, task is NOT complete
Examples
API Endpoint Verification
# Good: Actual test showing response
curl -X POST http://localhost:3000/api/login -d '{"email":"[email protected]"}'
# Output: {"success":true,"token":"..."}
# Bad: Just saying "endpoint works"
UI Verification
# Good: Take screenshot with browser tool
- Navigate to /dashboard
- Capture screenshot
- Confirm: Header visible? Data loaded? Layout correct?
# Bad: "The component should render correctly"
Build Verification
# Good: Show build output
npm run build
# Output: Successfully compiled...
# Bad: "Build should work now"
Forbidden Phrases
Never use these as justification for completion:
- "This should work"
- "The code looks correct"
- "I've made similar changes before"
- "Based on my understanding"
- "It follows the pattern"
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 98 lines · 19 tokens per session scan B e2c3299f4438
empirical-validation is a skill published in the GitHub repository toonight/get-shit-done-for-antigravity (946 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 597 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it B with 2 findings (sends data to an external url, 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
research-engineer
An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.
tika-eval-compare
Compare extracts from two Tika builds over a corpus to detect regressions in content, encoding, exceptions, and embedded-document handling. Use for "compare before/after extracts", "eval this change against the corpus".
neuron-evaluation-engineer
Create and run AI evaluations with datasets, assertions, and output drivers in Neuron AI. Use this skill whenever the user mentions evaluation, testing AI systems, creating evaluators, dataset-driven testing, assertion-based validation, or wants to measure AI system performance. Also trigger for tasks involving…
jetson-validate-image
Use after jetson-flash-image to run static BSP checks, on-target smoke/regression tests on a flashed DUT, or both. Not for build or flash steps. Triggers: validate bsp, on-target validation.
atmos-validation
Validate Atmos projects, components, arbitrary JSON Schema inputs, EditorConfig, and GitHub Actions; use affected-file selection and native CI annotations.
skill-benchmark
Benchmark AI skill effectiveness by measuring implementation quality against legacy constraints.