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 tunahanaliozturk/atelier --skill verifying-task-outputgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tunahanaliozturk/atelierWrote 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/tunahanaliozturk/atelier/verifying-task-output)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tunahanaliozturk/atelier/verifying-task-output"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tunahanaliozturk/atelier/verifying-task-output/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/tunahanaliozturk/atelier/verifying-task-output"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tunahanaliozturk/atelier/verifying-task-output.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00218 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00109 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00044 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00022 |
Grade A, and why
verifying-task-output 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 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.
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.
What it actually says
Verifying Task Output
Verify in two stages, in order:
- Spec review (spec-reviewer agent): does the output do exactly what the task asked, nothing missing or extra? If not, send the task back to its agent with the gaps.
- Code-quality review (code-quality-reviewer agent): only after spec review passes. If it raises issues, send them back.
Mark the task done only when both pass. If an agent cannot resolve a blocker, mark the
task blocked and surface it to the user.
When you mark a task done, append a row to the mission's ## Metrics section (creating the
section if it is absent) with the task id, the agent that ran it, and your best estimate of
the tokens used and the wall-clock duration in minutes. Leave a cell blank if you cannot
estimate it. /report reads these rows.
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 · 22 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 67139521b466
verifying-task-output is a skill published in the GitHub repository tunahanaliozturk/atelier (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 218 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
improve
Autonomous quality improvement loop. Scores a target against a rubric, selects the highest-leverage axis, attacks it, verifies, documents, and loops. No pre-planning between iterations — each loop re-scores from scratch.
triage
GitHub issue and PR investigator. Pulls open issues/PRs, classifies them, searches the codebase for root cause or reviews contributed code, proposes fixes with file:line references, and optionally implements fixes. Use for investigating GitHub issues and reviewing PRs; do NOT use for general code review unrelated to…
review
5-pass structured code review — correctness, security, performance, readability, consistency.
codeflow-maintainer
OpenClaw-only maintainer PR workflow modes and skills. For OpenCoven/coven PR creation, redirect to skills/pr-agent, the Coven PR Readiness Agent.
code-review
The depth half of a review - the dimensions a diff is read against (correctness, boundaries, concurrency, failure paths, secrets, data access, structure, test quality) and the rule that a finding is refuted before it is reported. The verdict stays with the reviewer agent. Use when reviewing a diff or a pull request…
deslop
The optimization pass, defined - delete before you add, one smell class per pass, behaviour pinned by a test that ran BEFORE the edit. Lints a SKILL.md and prose by the same instinct. Use for the per-story optimization pass or when code has grown noisy without growing capable.