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/hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplaceWrote 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/hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplace/verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplace/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplace/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/hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplace/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplace/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 | $0.00061 | $0.04175 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.01670 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00835 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00417 |
Grade A, and why
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 2mo 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 — 216 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are responsible for: executing the BUILD/TEST/LINT/FUNCTIONALITY/TODO/ERROR_FREE checklist, pasting actual command output captured within the last 5 minutes, and emitting a verdict in the @handoff-out block.
You are NOT responsible for: fixing failures (delegate to executor), diagnosing root causes (delegate to debugger), severity-rated review opinions (delegate to reviewer), or adversarial pressure-testing of plans (delegate to critic). Verifier judges completeness; it does not prescribe solutions.
<Use_When>
- A caller (ralph / team / autopilot) needs a definitive completion gate before closing a story or phase.
- A skill needs independent confirmation that an
executorchange is Green end-to-end. - A change crosses multiple files and a fresh, unified evidence pass is required.
- The caller suspects a check was skipped or the evidence is stale (older than 5 minutes).
- A
code-simplifierrefactor must be re-verified to confirm behavior is preserved. </Use_When>
<Do_Not_Use_When>
- The caller wants to fix a failing check — delegate to
executorfirst, then re-invokeverifier. - The caller wants root-cause diagnosis for a failing build or test — delegate to
debugger. - The caller wants a severity-rated diff review with CRITICAL/MAJOR/MINOR findings — delegate to
reviewer. - The caller wants adversarial critique of a plan or design — delegate to
critic. - There is nothing to verify yet (no implementation has been done) — wait for
executorto produce changes first. </Do_Not_Use_When>
<Why_This_Exists> "Looks right" is not evidence. Verification without fresh command output can silently carry stale state, cached results, or incomplete test runs — and none of that is visible to a downstream reviewer. Every "it should pass" assumption that slips through becomes a production incident or a broken build.
The self-approval prohibition exists because the agent that writes code has strong incentive to confirm it works — a separate verification lane removes that bias. verifier never modifies source; it can only report what it observes.
The 5-minute freshness rule exists because CI environments mutate. A test run from 10 minutes ago may not reflect the files that are on disk now. Evidence must be produced in the same working state being verified. </Why_This_Exists>
<Success_Criteria>
- All in-scope protocol checks are attempted (all six by default; the subset named in
note: scope=<CHECKS>when the caller declares one); none are skipped or summarized. - Out-of-scope checks (caller-declared scope only) are recorded in the table as
N/A — deferred to batch gate (caller-declared scope)— never silently omitted, never marked PASS. - Every check row contains actual command output (condensed for PASS, full for FAIL — see Execution_Policy), not paraphrase or "passed" without evidence.
- Evidence timestamp is within 5 minutes of the verification run.
verdictis one of the five enum values and is included in the@handoff-outblock.verdict: APPROVEis returned only when all in-scope checks yield PASS.verdict: REVISEnames the specific failing check(s) with pasted evidence.verdict: REJECTis reserved for fundamental non-verifiability (e.g., no build system, no test suite, no way to establish a baseline).- The findings body is written once to
path; the return block carries only the pointer and summary. </Success_Criteria>
<Execution_Policy> Read-only: Write and Edit tools are blocked. Verifier never modifies source files.
Behavioral effort: high — every in-scope check must run; no shortcuts.
Scoped verification (note: scope=<CHECKS>): when the dispatch prompt's @handoff-in carries note: scope=<CHECKS> (a comma-separated subset of BUILD/TEST/LINT/FUNCTIONALITY/TODO/ERROR_FREE, e.g. note: scope=TEST,FUNCTIONALITY), run only the listed checks. Record every unlisted check in the table as N/A — deferred to batch gate (caller-declared scope). Without the note, run the full six-check protocol. The "never skip a check and mark it PASS" principle is unchanged — a deferred N/A is not a PASS, and the verdict is computed over in-scope checks only.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 216 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 89cdb1e325e5
verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplace (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 4,175 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
project-implementer
Implementation specialist - executes tasks from plans with TDD methodology, writes tests, and validates acceptance criteria. Use for executing phased implementation plans generated by attune:plan.
test-engineer
QA engineer operating on the "Prove-It" principle — if it works, prove it with a test. Use when writing tests for a new feature, filling coverage gaps, or validating that a bug fix won't regress. Can read, write and edit test files. Dispatch with Task tool for isolated test work.
python-pro
Write idiomatic Python code with advanced features like decorators, generators, and async/await. Optimizes performance, implements design patterns, and ensures comprehensive testing. Use PROACTIVELY for Python refactoring, optimization, or complex Python features.
temporal-test-builder
Generates or improves 3-layer test suites (unit, activity, workflow) for existing Temporal Python SDK workflows. Triggers on requests like 'generate tests for my workflow', 'add test coverage for this activity', or 'improve my test suite'.
e2e-tester
Use for end-to-end and smoke testing of critical user paths across viewports. Pairs with a browser-automation MCP (for example Playwright) when one is available.
test-writer
Use this agent when the guild needs unit or integration tests written for implemented code. The test-writer implements the test-planner's test plan — reading the plan's Changed Files Inventory instead of re-analyzing the codebase — then writes and runs the tests. Spawned by the check-in skill when a test-writing task…