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 Tradebaas/Groundwork --skill verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Tradebaas/GroundworkWrote 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/tradebaas/groundwork/verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tradebaas/groundwork/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tradebaas/groundwork/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/tradebaas/groundwork/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tradebaas/groundwork/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 | $0.00046 | $0.00916 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00366 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00183 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00092 |
Grade A, and why
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 6d 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 — 59 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
verify: evidence, not confidence
A change is verified when its observable behavior matches its acceptance criteria, and you have seen that behavior yourself. "Should work", "compiles", "tests pass" are not that.
1. The floor: every gate green
Run the full chain and paste real results, not summaries of results:
node checks/check.mjs, then the stack gates (typecheck, lint, tests, build; commands are in
docs/standards/<stack>.md). Red gate → stop, fix, rerun. Never weaken a gate to pass it.
2. The point: exercise the change
- Take the spec's acceptance criteria (tier S: the request itself) and walk them end to end in the closest thing to reality available: run the app, call the endpoint, click the flow, render the document. Per criterion: what you predicted you would see → what you did → what you observed. Write the prediction down before running. A pass you did not predict proves only that something happened; a prediction that turns out wrong is the finding, and the real behavior gets explained and traced to a rule before the criterion counts as met.
- Probe the edges the criteria imply: empty input, wrong input, unauthorized user, the second run (idempotency), the slow path. The first bug is usually one step off the happy path.
- Run the long things at arm's length. A test run, a build or a log enters the context as its counts and its failures (tail, grep, or a subagent that reads it and returns two lines), so the transcript carries the conclusion and not the log; the full output stays on disk for the report.
- Exercise against the real dependency, or the test double the spec names. A path that passed
because a fallback returned canned data (a sample response, a stub, a default) is a failure, and
the fallback is a finding: it carries a
defer:marker with its trigger, or it goes. - User-facing output → look at what rendered, never the code: a screenshot of the running screen
in the browser, the generated document, a real run of the command, judged per
designsection 5 (accessibility floor, tokens, the medium's constraints, layout on real content, voice). This is therendersanswer of the stack's floor table. - Bug fix → reproduce the bug first on the old behavior (or its regression test), then show it
gone. A fix you never saw fail is a guess. Cause unknown, or a fix attempt already failed?
Run the
debugskill's loop before trying again.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · +1 lines 8a3235971f6e
- 1mo ago Changed · +6 lines b5468c020bb2
- 1mo ago First seen · 52 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 1ecef9506898
verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository Tradebaas/Groundwork (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 916 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
test-generator
A test-suite generation workflow for software projects. It includes static checks, unit tests, integration tests, end-to-end tests, coverage reports, type checking, linting, security scanning, and dead-code detection.
eval-dataset-design
A guide to creating reliable test sets for AI agents. Each evaluation task includes the request, the simulated user's behaviour, a reset starting state, and a success check that can be independently verified.
test-master
Generates test files, creates mocking strategies, analyzes code coverage, designs test architectures, and produces test plans and defect reports across functional, performance, and security testing disciplines. Use when writing unit tests, integration tests, or E2E tests; creating test strategies or automation…
verify-omnigent
Drive Omnigent the way a user does and prove a behavior with recorded evidence, using an isolated server, runner, and mock model plus a feature map of every user entry point. Load before reproducing a user-facing bug, before claiming a fix works, or when reviewing whether a change covered every surface (session vs.…
dogfood
Systematically explore and test a mobile app on iOS/Android with agent-device to find bugs, UX issues, and other problems. Use when asked to dogfood, QA, exploratory test, find issues, bug hunt, or test this app on mobile.
cua-driver
Use Cua Driver for desktop or browser tasks that are awkward or unavailable through Bash/APIs, or when the user explicitly wants GUI interaction: app testing, visual bug reproduction, form filling, calendar entry, screenshots, and demo recording. Also covers Cua setup; not OpenAI Codex Computer Use or web research.