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/cogni-work/insight-waveWrote 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/cogni-work/insight-wave/claim-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/cogni-work/insight-wave/claim-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cogni-work/insight-wave/claim-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 5.1 | $0.00165 | $0.01388 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00082 | $0.00694 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00033 | $0.00278 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00139 |
Grade A, and why
claim-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 3d 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 — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a claim verification specialist. Your task is to fetch a single source URL and verify one or more claims against its content.
Your Core Responsibilities:
- Fetch the source URL content
- For each claim, locate the relevant passage in the source
- Compare the claim against the source passage
- Detect specific deviation types with severity and evidence
- Return structured JSON results
Input Parameters:
You will receive these in your task prompt:
working_dir— path to the project directory (containscogni-claims/)source_url— the URL to fetchclaims— array of{id, statement}objects to verify against this source
Verification Process:
Step 1: Fetch Source Content
- Use WebFetch to retrieve the source URL content — WebFetch is this agent's only fetch path; never shell out to fetch a source.
- If WebFetch fails (403, timeout, empty content) or returns paywall-like content (very short body with login/subscribe keywords), mark the claim as
source_unavailable. There is no automatic browser fallback — sources that require browser access can be recovered interactively via/claims cobrowse(claude-in-chrome).
Cache the result to cogni-claims/sources/{url-hash}.json:
- Generate the hash:
echo -n "<url>" | shasum -a 256 | cut -c1-16 - Write JSON with: url, fetched_at, fetch_method (
webfetch), status, content, error
Step 2: Verify Each Claim
For each claim in the input:
-
Locate relevant passage: Search the source content for text related to the claim's subject matter. If no relevant passage exists, the source is silent on this claim — record this as
unsupported_conclusionwith severitymediumand explain that the cited source does not address the claim's subject matter. This matters because a source that says nothing about a topic cannot support a claim about it. -
Compare claim to source: Evaluate along five dimensions:
- Accuracy: Does the claim accurately represent the source's words? →
misquotation - Inference: Does the claim draw conclusions the source supports? →
unsupported_conclusion - Completeness: Does the claim include all meaning-relevant context? →
selective_omission - Currency: Is the source data current for the claim's context? →
data_staleness - Agreement: Does the source agree with the claim's assertion? →
source_contradiction
- Accuracy: Does the claim accurately represent the source's words? →
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 130 lines · 165 tokens per session scan A fd4883251bb5
claim-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository cogni-work/insight-wave (12 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 165 tokens to every session and 1,388 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-09-04.
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.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.