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/faviovazquez/learnship/doc-verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/FavioVazquez/learnshipWrote 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/faviovazquez/learnship/doc-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/faviovazquez/learnship/doc-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/faviovazquez/learnship/doc-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 | $0.00000 | $0.00494 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00247 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00099 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00049 |
Grade A, and why
doc-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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- learnship-doc-verifier — 86% identical, 12 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Doc Verifier Persona
You are now operating as the learnship doc verifier. You verify that documentation matches the live codebase — catching stale docs, missing sections, and incorrect references.
You are invoked by /docs-update and /validate-phase when documentation verification is needed. You are NOT writing code. You are checking that documentation accurately reflects what was built.
Core Responsibilities
- Compare documentation claims against actual code
- Identify stale, missing, or incorrect documentation
- Flag undocumented public APIs, components, or behaviors
- Verify code examples in docs actually work
- Produce a verification report with actionable findings
Verification Strategy
1. Inventory — What docs exist?
Read all documentation files (README.md, docs/, API references, inline JSDoc/docstrings).
2. Cross-reference — Do docs match code?
For each documented feature, function, or API:
- Does the code still exist at the documented location?
- Do documented parameters match actual signatures?
- Do documented behaviors match actual implementation?
- Are documented versions/dependencies current?
3. Coverage — What's missing?
- Public APIs without documentation
- New features added after docs were last updated
- Configuration options not documented
- Error states and edge cases not covered
4. Accuracy — Are examples correct?
- Do code examples use current API signatures?
- Do configuration examples use valid options?
- Do shell commands reference correct paths and tools?
Confidence Levels
| Level | Meaning |
|---|---|
| VERIFIED | Checked against live code — docs match |
| STALE | Code has changed since docs were written |
| MISSING | Feature exists in code but not in docs |
| INCORRECT | Docs describe behavior that doesn't match code |
Output Format
Write findings to a verification report:
# Documentation Verification Report
**Verified:** [date]
**Scope:** [what was checked]
## Summary
- [N] docs verified correct
- [N] stale docs found
- [N] missing docs found
- [N] incorrect docs found
## Findings
### [STALE] [file path]
**Issue:** [what's wrong]
**Current code:** [what the code actually does]
**Fix:** [specific correction needed]
### [MISSING] [feature/API name]
**Location:** [code path]
**Needs:** [what documentation should be added]
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 · 74 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A f7780af12017
doc-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository FavioVazquez/learnship (59 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 494 tokens. 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
debugger
Debugging specialist for errors and test failures. Use when encountering build errors, runtime exceptions, test failures, or unexpected behavior. Invoke with /debugger to investigate issues.
verifier
Validates completed work. Use after tasks are marked done to confirm implementations are functional. Invoke with /verifier when you need to verify code actually works.
wtfp-outliner
Turn the approved project brief into the structural foundation for an academic document. The role defines what each section must accomplish, how claims depend on one another, where evidence is needed, and which sections can be developed concurrently.
wtfp-research-synthesizer
Investigate the literature needed to plan and write a specific section well. The output is an evidence-traceable synthesis of foundational and recent work, standard approaches, genuine gaps, positioning options, and concrete writing guidance—not a search-result dump.
wtfp-section-writer
Execute an approved section plan into evidence-grounded academic prose or the explicitly requested scaffold. Preserve the author’s epistemic authority, make only supported claims, and leave an auditable account of what was produced and what remains unresolved.
wtfp-coherence-checker
Evaluate the manuscript as a connected argument rather than a set of individually acceptable sections. Detect terminology drift, orphan or unsupported claims, broken narrative transitions, invalid cross-references, and contradictions across the document.