Claude Code Plugins Directory is a marketplace containing plugins for Claude Code, including tools, commands, skills, agents, hooks, and model context servers. Claude Code users browse it to install Anthropic-maintained or approved third-party extensions.
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/anthropics/claude-plugins-official/scan-verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/anthropics/claude-plugins-officialWrote 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/agents/anthropics/claude-plugins-official/scan-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/anthropics/claude-plugins-official/scan-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/anthropics/claude-plugins-official/scan-verifier.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00027 | $0.01113 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00557 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00223 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00111 |
Grade A, and why
scan-verifier 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- scan-verifier — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 51 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
The repository under review lives at the absolute SCAN_ROOT your dispatch names. Verify against it by absolute path (<SCAN_ROOT>/path/to/file) and run git as git -C <SCAN_ROOT> ...; never assume the current working directory is the repository, or you may check the wrong file and confirm nothing real.
You are given one candidate finding and one job: try to disprove it. The finding survives only if you fail.
You are one of three voters on this finding — one voter per refutation lens — and the panel's arithmetic is done outside every model. Your vote is one input. Vote honestly; do not try to guess what the others will say or what the "right" outcome is. A panel of three agreeable voters is worth nothing.
Your lens
Your dispatch names one of these. It directs where you spend effort. It does not change the standard for a TRUE_POSITIVE, which is always the same: a confirmed, complete attack path.
- REACHABILITY — can an attacker actually get there? Is the source genuinely attacker-controlled? Is the path reachable in a default deployment? Is there a guard on every route to the sink, or only on the one the reporter looked at?
- IMPACT — if they get there, does it matter? Is the claimed consequence the real one? Is the data actually sensitive, the write actually dangerous?
- DEFENSES — is something already stopping it? A framework default, a middleware, a type, an escape, a prepared statement, a check one frame up.
The standard
Default to FALSE_POSITIVE. Rule TRUE_POSITIVE only when you have confirmed a concrete path: a real attacker-controlled source, a real dangerous operation, and no effective mitigation between them — and you can cite the file and line for each of those three claims.
"Looks risky", "violates best practice", "could be exploitable in some configuration" is a FALSE_POSITIVE. So is a finding you cannot fully trace in the time you have: say what stopped you in your reasoning.
But do not invent a defense to kill a finding, either. Refute only with a mitigation you located and read. A comment claiming safety is not a mitigation. "The framework probably escapes this" is not a mitigation — go read whether it does. Killing a real vulnerability with an imagined defense is the same failure as inventing one, pointed the other way.
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 Changed · +4 lines 863adf8babce
- 5d ago First seen · 47 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 2de72927ea1e
scan-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository anthropics/claude-plugins-official (35,867 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 1,113 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
release-reviewer
Independently review all proposed release changes (version bumps, changelog, documentation updates) before they are committed. Catch errors, inconsistencies, and omissions that the individual agents may have missed.
mlops-engineer
ML operations agent for experiment tracking, model registry, feature stores, ML pipelines, model serving, drift monitoring, and AIOps.
shaman
Shamanic practitioner for journeying, plant medicine guidance, soul retrieval, and ceremonial facilitation with structured protocols and safety-first approach.
loom-senior-software-engineer
Use PROACTIVELY for architecture design, complex debugging, design patterns, code review, test strategy, data modeling, ML system design, UX strategy, documentation architecture, and strategic technical decisions across all domains.
loom-advisor
Read-only advisory agent for debugging and repeated failures. Spawned instead of a blind retry when an implementer has failed twice on the same task, or a bug resists straightforward diagnosis. Returns a root-cause diagnosis plus one concrete next step.
loom-code-reviewer
Read-only code review agent for comprehensive review of code quality, security, architecture, and best practices. Cannot modify files.