Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to tr4m0ryp/linkedin-mcp-server. 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/tr4m0ryp/linkedin-mcp-server/main/.agents/skills/3-verify-pr-fix/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tr4m0ryp/linkedin-mcp-serverWrote 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/tr4m0ryp/linkedin-mcp-server/3-verify-pr-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tr4m0ryp/linkedin-mcp-server/3-verify-pr-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tr4m0ryp/linkedin-mcp-server/3-verify-pr-fix/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/tr4m0ryp/linkedin-mcp-server/3-verify-pr-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tr4m0ryp/linkedin-mcp-server/3-verify-pr-fix.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 | $0.00077 | $0.03409 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.01705 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00682 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00341 |
Grade A, and why
3-verify-pr-fix scanned grade A with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
curl -s -D /tmp/verify-pr-$PR-headers -X POST http://127.0.0.1:$PORT/mcp \ This is a copy
100% identical to 3-verify-pr-fix — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 201 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify a Candidate PR Actually Fixes the Issue
Goal: take a PR number, check it out cleanly, re-run the same tool call that failed on main, compare the outputs, and produce a verdict — "fixes", "fixes but with concerns", "does not fix", or "cannot run". Pair with /2-repro-issue (which produces the baseline). No edits, no merges, no pushes.
Phase 1 — Resolve the PR and its linked issue
# Accept "498", "#498", or "https://github.com/.../pull/498" — extract the digits only
PR=$(echo "$ARGUMENTS" | sed -E 's|.*/||; s|#||g' | grep -oE '^[0-9]+' | head -1)
[ -z "$PR" ] && { echo "Invalid input: '$ARGUMENTS'. Pass a PR number or URL." >&2; exit 1; }
REPO=stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server
gh pr view $PR --repo $REPO --json title,body,baseRefName,headRefName,headRepositoryOwner,mergeable,mergeStateStatus,additions,deletions,changedFiles,maintainerCanModify,statusCheckRollup
Extract the linked issue number from the PR body (Closes #, Fixes #, Resolves #, or plain #N). Call it ISSUE. If multiple, ask the user which one is the verification target.
Phase 2 — Pick up the baseline + request metadata
/2-repro-issue writes two files for each issue:
/tmp/repro-issue-<ISSUE>-main.json— the on-main response baseline/tmp/repro-issue-<ISSUE>-meta.json— the{tool, arguments}used to call it
Both must exist. The meta file is how this skill replays the exact same call instead of guessing tool and args from the response body.
ls -la /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-main.json /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-meta.json 2>&1
# Both files must exist AND be non-empty. ls alone never fails the script, so
# guard each path before we touch the PR branch or LinkedIn.
[ -s /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-main.json ] || { echo "Missing or empty response baseline. Re-run /2-repro-issue $ISSUE." >&2; exit 1; }
[ -s /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-meta.json ] || { echo "Missing or empty meta file. Re-run /2-repro-issue $ISSUE." >&2; exit 1; }
TOOL=$(jq -r .tool /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-meta.json)
ARGS_JSON=$(jq -c .arguments /tmp/repro-issue-$ISSUE-meta.json)
echo "Replaying: $TOOL($ARGS_JSON)"
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 · 201 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 156cac8c102f
3-verify-pr-fix is a skill published in the GitHub repository tr4m0ryp/linkedin-mcp-server (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 3,409 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). It is 100% identical to 3-verify-pr-fix, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
frontend-code-review
Trigger when the user requests a review of frontend files (e.g., .tsx, .ts, .js). Support both pending-change reviews and focused file reviews while applying the checklist rules.
no-mistakes
Validate committed feature-branch changes through the no-mistakes pipeline: intent, rebase, review, test, docs, lint, push, PR, and CI. Use when the user asks to run no-mistakes, ship safely, validate before pushing, or gate a change before it reaches upstream.
ai-slop-cleaner
Post-implementation cleanup that removes AI-generated bloat while preserving functionality. Runs pass-by-pass with test verification after each pass. Activate after kraken/spark complete a feature, or when a codebase needs hygiene work.
coding-standards
Universal coding standards - naming, formatting, error handling, immutability, SOLID principles.