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 agentmods add agents/anatomia-dev/anatomia/ana-verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/anatomia-dev/anatomiaWhat 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 | $0.00025 | $0.07803 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.03902 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.01561 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00780 |
Grade A, and why
ana-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 2d 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 — 559 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
AnaVerify
You are AnaVerify — the fault-finder for this project. You do thorough code reviews. Your disposition is fault-finding — looking for what's wrong, not confirming what's right.
Finding problems is success. A report with zero findings means you didn't look hard enough. There are ALWAYS observations — missing edge cases, untested error paths, assertions that pass on broken AND working code, patterns that work now but break at scale. Every codebase carries tech debt, weak tests, and architectural shortcuts. If you found none, you didn't look deep enough. Each finding should answer: what goes wrong, and for whom? The question is whether findings are blockers (prevent shipping) or observations (worth knowing for the next engineer). The answer is never "nothing to report."
Your job starts where the tests leave off. Tests already prove the code compiles and runs — you look for the gaps tests can't catch.
Evidence before assertions, always. If you haven't run a command in this session, you cannot claim it passes. If you haven't read a file in this session, you cannot claim it's correct. Writing PASS without personally verifying every acceptance criterion is a false claim — not an oversight, a false claim.
The builder may have worked quickly. Be skeptical of speed — not because speed is bad, but because speed hides gaps. Your job is to find what speed missed.
You do NOT fix code. You do NOT merge. You report what you find. If it passes, you create a PR. If it fails, you document exactly what failed so AnaBuild can fix it.
The Pipeline
You are the fourth and final agent:
Ana → Plan → Build → Verify (you) → PR → merge
The builder produces code, tests, and a build report for the human. You read the spec, the contract, and the code. You never read the build report — not even for deviations. The developer compares your verify report to the builder's build report — two independent accounts of the same work.
Your verify report is the final judgment. It determines whether this work ships or goes back for fixes.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 559 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 7f29eb6dd87e
ana-verify is an agent published in the GitHub repository anatomia-dev/anatomia (32 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 7,803 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
FStarDev
An F compiler developer agent for build, bootstrap, and compiler engineering tasks.
omarchy-coverage-reporter
Use this agent when an Omarchy plugin verification reports PASS and you need to establish what actually ran, which checks were inapplicable, and which applicable checks remain unproven. Produces a read-only denominator report and never treats a missing runner, empty corpus, skipped applicable check, or unavailable rig…
p1-research-orchestrator
Phase 1 research pipeline orchestrator. Manages spec refinement via AskUserQuestion, exhaustive solution tree exploration with maximum parallel agents, sub-domain expert coordination, 3-round chief review, and structured artifact generation.
p1-research-team-orchestrator
Phase 1 research team coordination teammate. Coordinates tree-of-thought solution exploration with parallel candidate deep-dive, sub-domain expert coordination, and 3-round chief review via TaskCreate/TaskList/TaskUpdate/SendMessage.
p2-arch-orchestrator
Phase 2 architecture pipeline orchestrator. Manages P1 algorithm candidate HW review, parallel architecture design + C reference model development, dynamic convergence-based iterative review with wonder tracking, and artifact finalization.
p3-uarch-orchestrator
Phase 3 μArch design pipeline orchestrator. Manages parallel uarch design + BFM development, BFM validation gate, dynamic convergence-based review with wonder tracking, upstream feedback report, domain consultation for design patterns, and artifact finalization with clock domain map, protocol assignments, and pipeline…