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 yash-gadodia/claude-init --skill verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yash-gadodia/claude-initWrote 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/yash-gadodia/claude-init/verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yash-gadodia/claude-init/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yash-gadodia/claude-init/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/yash-gadodia/claude-init/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yash-gadodia/claude-init/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 | $0.00027 | $0.00656 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00328 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00066 |
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 9d 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 — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Before Completion
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
Core principle: evidence before claims, always.
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If you haven't run the verification command in this response, you cannot claim it passes.
Current Repo State
Loaded fresh when this skill triggers — so you can't claim "tests passed" from a stale mental model:
Uncommitted changes:
!git status --short 2>/dev/null || echo "(not a git repo)"
Last commit:
!git log -1 --oneline 2>/dev/null || echo "(no git history)"
The Gate
Before claiming ANY status (done, fixed, passing, working, complete):
- Identify: What command proves this claim?
- Run: Execute the full command (fresh, not cached from earlier)
- Read: Full output, check exit code, count pass/fail
- Confirm: Does the output support the claim?
- No: State actual status with evidence
- Yes: State claim WITH the evidence ("All 47 tests pass — see output above")
- Only then: Make the claim
Skip any step = unverified claim.
What Counts as Verification
| Claim | Requires | NOT Sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| "Tests pass" | Test command output showing 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| "Build succeeds" | Build command with exit 0 | "Linter passed" |
| "Bug is fixed" | Test reproducing the bug now passes | "Code changed" |
| "Requirements met" | Line-by-line checklist against spec | "Tests pass" |
| "Linter clean" | Linter output showing 0 errors | Partial check |
Red Flags — STOP
These thoughts mean you're about to make an unverified claim:
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to", "looks correct"
- Feeling satisfied before running verification
- About to say "Done!" or "Fixed!" or "All good!"
- Trusting that a change you just made works without running it
- Thinking "just this once" or "it's obvious it works"
Replace each with: run the command, read the output, cite the evidence.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 76 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 64cd822951ac
verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository yash-gadodia/claude-init (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 656 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
swift-testing-wait-until
Use when a test needs to wait for an async state change instead of a fixed delay — the notasksleepintests lint rule bans arbitrary Task.sleep in tests because it causes flaky failures. Provides the waitUntil polling helper to add to a test target instead.
testing
Use when writing tests, running tests, adding test coverage, or debugging test failures. Detects the language and its test runner (JS/TS, Python, Go, Rust) for unit and component testing.
skill-tuning-loop
Empirically test whether a lacquer skill needs an edit by mining real session transcripts for friction, proposing a bounded fix, and validating it against held-out cases before it ships. Use when a skill in core/skills/ or profiles//skills/ keeps getting corrected in practice, when triaging a scheduled tuning-pass PR…
superplan-verify
Use when you are about to say work is complete, fixed, passing, or ready and need fresh proof from the real workspace harness first.
superplan-tdd
Use when a feature, bugfix, or behavior change has a testable contract and implementation is about to begin.
superplan-guard
Use when a fix or behavior change needs the smallest durable test, check, or proof so the contract will fail loudly if it regresses.