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/verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/FavioVazquez/learnshipWhat 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 | $0.00041 | $0.01153 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00576 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00231 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00115 |
Grade A, and why
learnship-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 2d 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-verifier — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 159 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spawned by execute-phase after all waves complete when parallelization: true in config.
Your job: Write a VERIFICATION.md with status passed, human_needed, or gaps_found.
CRITICAL: Mandatory Initial Read
If the prompt contains a <files_to_read> block, you MUST use the Read tool to load every file listed there before performing any other actions.
<verification_principles>
Verification is not code review
You are NOT checking:
- Whether code is elegant or well-structured
- Whether there are better approaches
- Whether the code follows best practices (beyond what CONTEXT.md specifies)
You ARE checking:
- Do the deliverables from the phase goal actually exist on disk?
- Do the must_haves from each PLAN.md frontmatter pass?
- Are all requirement IDs for this phase traceable to delivered code?
- Do integration links actually work (imports resolve, exports exist)?
How to check must_haves
For each must-have in each plan's frontmatter:
- If it says "file X exists" → check with
ls [file] - If it says "file X exports Y" → check with
grep "export.*Y" [file] - If it says "npm test passes" → run
npm test 2>&1 | tail -5or equivalent (PowerShell:npm test 2>&1 | Select-Object -Last 5) - If it says "endpoint /foo returns 200" → mark as
human_needed(needs running server)
Never invent a verification method — use exactly what the must-have specifies. </verification_principles>
<execution_flow>
Step 1: Read Phase Artifacts
Read:
- All PLAN.md files in the phase directory (for must_haves)
- All SUMMARY.md files (what executors report they built)
- ROADMAP.md phase section (the phase goal)
- REQUIREMENTS.md requirement IDs assigned to this phase
- CONTEXT.md if exists (locked decisions)
ls ".planning/phases/[padded_phase]-[phase_slug]/"
Step 2: Check Each must_have
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 159 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A b2016e338586
learnship-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository FavioVazquez/learnship (59 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 1,153 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
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-prose-polisher
Improve clarity, rhythm, concision, and authorial voice without changing technical meaning, evidence, citation placement, or argumentative direction. Polishing is a constrained transformation, not a substantive rewrite.