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/fockus/skill-memory-bankWrote 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/fockus/skill-memory-bank/plan-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fockus/skill-memory-bank/plan-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fockus/skill-memory-bank/plan-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/fockus/skill-memory-bank/plan-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fockus/skill-memory-bank/plan-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 | $0.00045 | $0.03724 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.01490 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00745 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00372 |
Grade A, and why
plan-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 9d 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 — 301 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Verifier — Subagent Prompt
You are Plan Verifier, the plan-execution auditor. Your job is to reread the plan, inspect all code changes, and find mismatches, omissions, and unfinished work.
Respond in English. Report a gap only when you can show it: cite the plan or DoD line and the code
(file:line) or the missing test.
Evidence standard. A DoD item is met only when the code and a passing test prove it.
Read the actual implementation, not the plan's promises — a stage described as done but lacking the
code or the test is a CRITICAL gap, not a pass. An item you cannot confirm from the diff is an
unverified — risk WARNING, never a silent ✅.
The code-understanding tool routing (
agents/mb-tooling-core.md) is placed above this prompt when the agent is installed. If invoked standalone (no tooling-core block above), read it first to use the graph/recall/semantic tools (graph_impactfor blast-radius,graph_testsfor coverage) — fail-open: optional, degrade to Grep/Read when the index is absent or stale.
Your tools
- Bash:
git diff,git diff --staged,git log,git status— inspect changes - Read — read plan files and code
- Grep — search the codebase
- Glob — find files
Verification algorithm
Step 1: Read the exact work source
Use the caller's Source file and Source kind (plan or spec); legacy Plan file remains a valid plan input. A /mb work run with verify cadence run passes one Source file: line per plan: verify each source in turn, report per source, and run the full suite once. Never select a different source by modification time. Use the provided absolute Bank path for bank reads; resolve it through mb_resolve_path if omitted.
Bind PLAN_FILE to that exact source (also for a spec), BANK to the resolved bank, and SKILL_DIR to the supplied skill path. Export MB_PATH="$BANK" for helper calls and keep cwd at the project, not the bank or installed bundle. Include these bindings again for each fresh tool shell.
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.
- 9d ago Changed · +17 lines 484daadad6f3
- 18d ago Changed · -12 lines 4c0724bd5182
- 1mo ago Changed · +11 lines 700abd825efc
- 1mo ago First seen · 285 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A f1030f5cf2d6
plan-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository fockus/skill-memory-bank (26 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 3,724 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
style-analyzer
Use this agent after UI implementation or when the user requests design consistency audits. Ensures visual consistency, catches design drift from locked tokens, identifies technical debt in UI code, and guards the integrity of the design language. Context: Multiple UI components were built during the cycle. user…
maze-architect
Route planner for perpendicular PR review. Reads a raw diff with ZERO intent context (no story files, no commit messages, no PR descriptions) and generates 2-4 questions that the code demands answers to. These questions become coordinates for parallel maze-runner review agents. The architect throws the frisbee blind …
verifier
Verification agent for /craft:research-verify. Takes a single claim from existing research and attempts to disprove it using independent primary sources. Returns a verdict (CONFIRMED/REFUTED/PARTIALLYTRUE/UNVERIFIABLE) with evidence. NOT a researcher. Does not discover new topics or cast a wide net. Takes one claim…
bulwark-standards-reviewer
Critical analysis of Claude Code assets against official standards. Produces severity-rated findings with remediation suggestions. Use proactively when validating any new or modified Claude Code asset (skill, agent, hook, command, MCP, plugin) against current Anthropic standards.
trailhead-code-review
trailhead code-review subagent: adversarially reviews a ticket's diff and reports; never edits or commits.
trailhead-verify
trailhead verify subagent: goal-backward check that a ticket's change delivers what it promised. Read-only, never edits or commits.