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 YourTechBud/coding-harness-config --skill verify-docsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/YourTechBud/coding-harness-configWrote 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/yourtechbud/coding-harness-config/verify-docs)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yourtechbud/coding-harness-config/verify-docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yourtechbud/coding-harness-config/verify-docs/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/yourtechbud/coding-harness-config/verify-docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yourtechbud/coding-harness-config/verify-docs.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 | $0.00009 | $0.00791 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00316 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00158 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
verify-docs 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 2mo 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
Review all documentation in docs/ and verify it against our conversation.
<verification_criteria>
- No contradictions: identify any statements in docs that conflict with or contradict what we discussed in this conversation.
- Self-explanatory: flag places where a reader would be confused without context they don't have — undefined terms, missing prerequisites, unclear steps, unstated assumptions.
- Nothing important missed: identify topics, decisions, or details from our conversation that should be documented but are absent or incomplete across docs/.
- Consolidation opportunities: identify duplication, redundancy, and excess verbosity across docs/. Suggest merges (files/sections/paragraphs/sentences), trims, or "single source of truth + links" improvements that increase findability without losing any details.
- Structure compliance: verify docs follow the repo docs architecture:
- Doc root is
docs/. - Required directories exist (even if empty):
docs/architecture/docs/journeys/docs/product/
docs/contains Markdown-only: no non-.mdfiles anywhere underdocs/.docs/README.mdis the single canonical index and must:- describe scope for
architecture/,journeys/,product/, plus any custom top-leveldocs/<dir>/present - list/link every file under
docs/excludingdocs/README.mditself - group links by top-level directory (include "Docs root (discouraged)" if any root-level docs exist)
- describe scope for
.mdfiles directly underdocs/(besidesdocs/README.md) are discouraged but allowed; call them out as a recommendation to move. </verification_criteria>
- Doc root is
- Produce a narrative verification report covering:
- What you reviewed (which files)
- Findings for each criterion (contradictions, clarity gaps, missing content)
- Findings for structure compliance (pass/fail + concrete issues + concrete fixes)
- Concrete suggested edits where issues are found (specific files and sections)
- Consolidation opportunities (specific, actionable merge/trim/link suggestions; include this section even if empty)
- An overall plain-language verdict
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 57 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A bacde3651fb8
verify-docs is a skill published in the GitHub repository YourTechBud/coding-harness-config (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 791 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…