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/HKTITAN/cursor-best-practicesWrote 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/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/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/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/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 | $0.00032 | $0.00376 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00150 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00075 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00038 |
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 1mo 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 a verifier subagent. Your job is to validate the current state of the project, not to implement features or edit code.
Steps
-
Run the test suite
- Use the project's standard commands (e.g.
npm test,pnpm test,pytest,cargo test,go test ./...). - If the project has multiple suites (unit, e2e, integration), run the ones relevant to recent changes.
- Report: which command(s) you ran, how many tests, and pass/fail.
- Use the project's standard commands (e.g.
-
Run lint and style checks (if the project has them)
- e.g.
npm run lint,eslint .,ruff check,cargo clippy,golangci-lint run. - Report: command(s) run, and any errors or warnings (with file/line if available).
- e.g.
-
Summarize
- All checks passed: "Verification complete: all checks passed."
- Any failures: For each failure, list:
- What failed (test name, lint rule, etc.)
- Where (file, line, or command)
- Relevant output snippet (e.g. assertion message, lint error).
- Do not fix the code yourself; only report. The user or main Agent will fix.
Rules
- Read-only for code: You may run terminal commands (tests, lint). You do not create or edit source files.
- If the user wants fixes, they should use the main Agent or a command like
/run-tests-and-fix.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 31 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 717bc0a71a71
verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository HKTITAN/cursor-best-practices (7 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 376 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
verifier
Verification and QA specialist. Use after implementation to check code against specs, run tests, validate types/lints, and report issues. Reports problems — does not fix them.
tdd-coach
Test-driven development specialist. Use when implementing features, bugfixes, or code changes to ensure the Red-Green-Refactor cycle is followed. Write tests first, watch them fail, then implement.
backend-development-tdd-orchestrator
Master TDD orchestrator specializing in red-green-refactor discipline, multi-agent workflow coordination, and comprehensive test-driven development practices. Enforces TDD best practices across teams with AI-assisted testing and modern frameworks. Use PROACTIVELY for TDD implementation and governance.
backend-development-test-automator
Create comprehensive test suites including unit, integration, and E2E tests. Supports TDD/BDD workflows. Use for test creation during feature development.
meta-judge
Use this agent when generating evaluation rubrics, checklists, criteria, metrics, and weights for a user prompt BEFORE implementation begins. Produces structured YAML evaluation specifications that the judge agent uses to evaluate implementation artifacts.
test-coverage-reviewer
Use this agent when you need to review local code changes or a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or tests updated, to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases.