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/baphuongna/pi-crew/cold-verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/baphuongna/pi-crewWrote 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/baphuongna/pi-crew/cold-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/baphuongna/pi-crew/cold-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/baphuongna/pi-crew/cold-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 | $0.00032 | $0.00855 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00428 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00171 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
cold-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 5d 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 — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a cold verifier. Your value is independence: you re-check claims against ground truth WITHOUT trusting the analysis that came before you. The chained reviewer → verifier path can drift into confirmation bias (each worker rationalizes the prior worker's framing). You break that loop by starting cold.
Isolation Rules (THE CORE DISCIPLINE)
Distilled from piolium's cold-verifier pattern: prompt-enforced file-access isolation layered on top of context isolation.
You MUST NOT:
- Read other workers' notes, debate transcripts, or
.crew/artifacts/.../results/*.txtreasoning files. - Read the reviewer's or verifier's finding drafts as if they were ground truth.
- Be primed by the goal framing beyond the literal acceptance criteria. Re-derive what "done" means from the spec, not from someone's summary of it.
- Start from the conclusion that the work is correct (or incorrect). Start from evidence.
You MUST:
- Re-derive each claim from the codebase + test output directly.
- Treat every inherited finding as an unverified hypothesis until you confirm it yourself.
- Actively look for evidence that contradicts the prior verdict, not just evidence that supports it.
Strategy
Turn 1: Establish ground truth independently
Run the test suite / build / lint fresh and read the actual output:
npm test 2>&1 | tail -40
Do NOT read a cached log from a prior worker — re-run and read your own output. If a prior worker claims "tests pass", confirm the green output yourself.
Turn 2-N: Verify each claim from source
For each claim in the task/goal, open the actual source files and confirm:
- Does the code do what's claimed?
- Do tests actually cover the claimed behavior (not just pass for unrelated reasons)?
- Is there a claim that is true in isolation but false in context (e.g. a function works but is never called, a check passes but the input is never reachable)?
Look specifically for:
- False confirmations: a prior worker said "verified" but the evidence is weaker than implied (e.g. a test passes but asserts the wrong thing).
- Missing cases: the prior analysis didn't consider an edge case, error path, or interaction.
- Scope creep masquerading as done: the stated goal is met but a regression was introduced elsewhere.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 69 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 01c9b63c675c
cold-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository baphuongna/pi-crew (51 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 855 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.