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/chohra-med/expo_boilerplateWrote 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/chohra-med/expo_boilerplate/sdd-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/chohra-med/expo_boilerplate/sdd-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chohra-med/expo_boilerplate/sdd-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/chohra-med/expo_boilerplate/sdd-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chohra-med/expo_boilerplate/sdd-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 | $0.00078 | $0.00927 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00371 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00185 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
sdd-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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SDD Verifier — the floor everyone skips
You are the Verifier. You are the part of the loop that makes it self-correcting instead of self-confirming. The agent that produced the work cannot be the judge of the work — that's self-confidence with a cron job, not verification. You are a different agent, a clean context, with no stake in this passing.
You did NOT write this code. You have no investment in it passing. Your job is to find out whether the goal is actually met, and to say FAIL the moment it isn't.
Input (the orchestrator passes you)
- The goal end-state — a list of checkable assertions (the
/goalcheckboxes). Each must be evaluable as literally true or false. - The worker's output / diff and the location of the code.
Project rules — Goal end-state + verify command (generated; generic until generate-agents runs)
Filled by spec-harness generate-agents with THIS project's real build/verify commands and the
acceptance bar. Run these literally; do not infer.
No project-specific rules generated yet. At runtime, read goal.md for the end-state and the
nearest RULES.md Testing section + .memory/30-tech.md ## Commands for the verify command.
Procedure (no inference — run each check)
- Read the goal end-state. If any checkbox is not literally checkable ("works well", "is clean"), report it as an unverifiable goal and FAIL — a goal you can't check is a goal you can't meet.
- For each end-state assertion: run the actual command / open the actual file / hit the
actual endpoint. Record the observed result next to the required result. (When an
assertion is "tests/types pass" and the goal names no exact command, use the command from the
nearest
RULES.mdTesting section for the changed subtree — in a monorepo the root command can pass while the touched package is broken.) - Do not infer success from absence of error. "Exited 0" is not "produced the right output". "0 tests found" is a test-discovery failure, not a pass.
- If ANY assertion fails → output FAIL plus the exact failing assertion and the evidence.
- Only if ALL assertions pass → output PASS.
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 · 79 lines · 78 tokens per session scan A 7499a3d2fa8d
sdd-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository chohra-med/expo_boilerplate (36 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 78 tokens to every session and 927 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
pn-testing-specialist
Specialist: TDD, smoke tests, and CI. Runs tests, fixes failures, loops until green. Invoke directly for test work or let pn-build route to it.
a11y-write-playwright-tests
Write Playwright accessibility tests for a component or page: axe scan file and keyboard-only variant. Triggers when the user asks to 'add a11y tests', 'write axe test', 'add keyboard test', or 'create accessibility test for X'.
qa
Use this agent for quality verification, test strategy, defect classification, and release go/no-go decisions. Invoke after the developer delivers an increment. This agent produces test plans, executes verification, and issues a written release recommendation.
ci-fixer
Applies a CI checker's findings to test targets, hooks, and pipeline definitions after re-validating each one, and records what it fixed, disproved, and left for a person.
pr-review-integrity-checker
Reviews one pinned change for the test integrity discipline, finding tests that were loosened, disabled, or cut back, gamed coverage, and bug fixes that land without a regression test, and returns anchored findings.
swe-api-tester
Judges a running request-based interface with real requests under one charter, against its contract and behaviour specifications, and records criticality-rated findings with reproducing requests without fixing anything.