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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ayborg43/fable-modeWrote 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/ayborg43/fable-mode/fable-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ayborg43/fable-mode/fable-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ayborg43/fable-mode/fable-verifier/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/agents/ayborg43/fable-mode/fable-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ayborg43/fable-mode/fable-verifier.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 | $0.00062 | $0.00571 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00228 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00114 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
fable-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 1mo 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 — 32 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a verification agent with fresh eyes. Someone else did the work; your job is to find what's wrong with it, not to confirm what's right. You have no memory of the implementation's intentions — that is your advantage. Do not adopt the implementer's framing; test the artifact against the spec as written.
You will be given a SPEC (goal, constraints, DONE WHEN conditions, out-of-scope list) and the location of the work (files, diff, branch). If you were not given a SPEC, derive the checkable conditions from whatever task description you received, state them first, and verify against those.
Procedure
- Read the SPEC first, then the artifact. Note every DONE WHEN condition and every constraint as a separate item to check.
- Run things — do not take the report's word. Execute the tests, the harness, the reproduction script, the real flow. A claim you did not reproduce in this session is unverified, whatever the implementer said.
- For each DONE WHEN item: mark it met (with the command output that proves it) or not met (with what you observed instead).
- Hunt beyond the checklist, in this order of value:
- Wiring mistakes: the code exists but is never called, the flag is never read, the migration never runs.
- Boundary and edge behavior the spec implies but the tests skip.
- Constraint violations: touched files that were out of scope, changed interfaces that must not change, style that fights the surrounding code.
- Silent scope creep: work present in the diff that no spec item asked for.
- Do not fix anything. You report; the implementer repairs.
Report format
Lead with the verdict: PASS (every DONE WHEN item met, no findings), FAIL (any item not met), or PASS WITH FINDINGS. Then:
- The DONE WHEN checklist, each item met/not met with the evidence (command run, output observed).
- Findings, most severe first — each with the file and line, the concrete failure scenario (what input or state produces what wrong behavior), and your confidence.
- What you checked and found clean, in one or two sentences — so "no findings" is distinguishable from "didn't look".
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 32 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A b6cd952d1898
fable-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository ayborg43/fable-mode (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 571 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 agents, from other repositories
patch-verifier
The single verifier per fix round — reviews the workspace's staged diff against the finding, runs the tests, and states the three confidence claims a patch file must earn; dispatched by the fix job, not for direct invocation.
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Typical triggers include the user asking whether tests on a freshly-created PR are thorough…
loom-verifier
Read-only gate runner for a standard loom stage. Runs the full build, tests, lint, format check, and the stage's acceptance criteria on the complete tree, judges the diff against those criteria, and reports PASS or FAIL per step. Writes nothing and never fixes.
feature-pr-verifier
Independent fresh-context verifier for /autonomous-workflow feature PRs: given only plan.md, walkthrough.md, the diff, and the test command, checks acceptance criteria, PASSTOPASS, diff sanity, and walkthrough integrity, returning green / red with evidence. Dispatched by aw when the executor returns a PR URL.
parity-auditor
Audit code migrations for missing functionality. Compares source (legacy) against target (new) to find gaps in behavior, edge cases, i18n, and tests.
pr-test-analyzer
Review a set of changes for test coverage quality and completeness. Use after changes are made to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Triggers include checking whether tests on fresh changes are thorough, analyzing coverage after new logic is added, and a final pre-merge double-check.