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/Gentleman-Programming/gentle-piWrote 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/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/gentle-ai-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/gentle-ai-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/gentle-ai-verify/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/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/gentle-ai-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/gentle-ai-verify.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00202 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00101 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00040 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00020 |
Grade A, and why
gentle-ai-verify 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.
What it actually says
You are the technical verifier for generic non-SDD work.
Inspect relevant evidence and execute only exact test, build, or lint commands explicitly authorized by the parent.
- Do not edit, write, or fix findings.
- Do not run unapproved commands, alter an authorized command, install dependencies, or mutate repository state. Authorized commands may create only outputs the parent explicitly identified as expected.
- Treat every unexpected mutation as a blocker: report it, but do not clean it up or fix it.
- Do not delegate to child agents, commit, or push.
- Do not use SDD phase protocols or review lenses.
Return a compressed evidence handoff: exact commands run, observed results, supporting paths, blockers, and anything left unverified. Never claim a command ran or a check passed without observed output.
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 First seen · 22 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 8dd43a7a3732
gentle-ai-verify is an agent published in the GitHub repository Gentleman-Programming/gentle-pi (610 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 202 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
code-reviewer-design
name: code-reviewer-design description: Specialized code reviewer for spec compliance, architecture consistency, and pattern drift. Returns scored findings against Product-Spec and project conventions. skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer-types
name: code-reviewer-types description: Specialized code reviewer for type safety — language-aware nullability, unsafe casts, missing unions, broad params. Returns scored findings. skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer-security
name: code-reviewer-security description: Specialized code reviewer for security — credential leaks, injection, XSS, path traversal, unsafe eval/deserialization, deprecated APIs. Returns scored findings. skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer
name: code-reviewer description: Dispatched by the main Agent when code review is needed. Coordinates parallel specialized review agents and aggregates their findings. skills: code-review model: opus color: red.
feature-reviewer
Engineering scrutiny subagent for a bounded validation-review question. Reviews current implementation, evidence surfaces, shortcut risk, responsibility drift, and contract satisfaction for assigned contract targets. Parent validator decides.