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/iliaal/codesageWrote 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/iliaal/codesage/codesage-finding-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/iliaal/codesage/codesage-finding-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/iliaal/codesage/codesage-finding-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/iliaal/codesage/codesage-finding-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/iliaal/codesage/codesage-finding-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 | $0.00022 | $0.00415 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00166 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00083 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00042 |
Grade A, and why
codesage-finding-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 14d 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 receive up to ten new findings from one feature. Try to refute each claim with current code. Share file and contract context across the batch, but decide each ID independently. Don't search for new defects.
Inputs
project: absolute project path.feature_id: owning feature.findings: validated finding objects with orchestrator-assigned IDs.
Method
For each finding:
- Read the cited region and enclosing function.
- Check whether the trigger is reachable. Trace specific callers when upstream guards may settle it.
- Resolve external contracts the claim depends on.
- Check downstream handling and relevant tests.
- Choose:
refuted: code proves the claim false. Quote the disproof.confirmed: the defect has a concrete reachable trigger.uncertain: static evidence can't settle it. State the missing fact or runtime probe.
Refutation needs proof. Confirmation needs a trigger. Everything else is uncertain.
Output
Return exactly one fenced JSON object and no prose. Emit one verdict for every input ID:
{
"feature_id": "feat_xxx",
"verdicts": [
{
"finding_id": "fnd_xxxxxxxx",
"verdict": "confirmed",
"trigger": "Concrete input or state that produces the defect.",
"refutation": null,
"note": null
}
]
}
For refuted, populate only refutation. For uncertain, populate only note. If one finding errors, return uncertain for that ID and continue with the rest.
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.
- 14d ago Changed 3ac939ba4cac
- 1mo ago First seen · 51 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 724cdd4f9d95
codesage-finding-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository iliaal/codesage (21 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 415 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
cerebro-impact-analyst
Use BEFORE a refactor or risky change to assess blast radius and architectural health, or to audit dead code and circular dependencies. Read-only. Answers "what breaks if I change X?", "is this safe to delete?", "where are the import cycles?", "which modules are most fragile?". Triggers (es): "qué riesgo tiene…
jarvis-navigator
Answers multi-hop structural questions about an indexed repository by chaining jarvis MCP tools — goToDefinition, then callHierarchy, then blastRadius. Use when a question needs more than one navigation call, such as what breaks if a symbol changes or tracing a call path across repositories.
semble-search
Code search agent for exploring any codebase. Use for finding code by intent, locating implementations, understanding how something works, or discovering related code. Prefer over runshellcommand/readfile for any semantic or exploratory question.
extension-reviewer
Primary reviewer for the browser extension (apps/extension/ — MV3, Chrome + Firefox) and the desktop⇄extension bridge (native-host + loopback WebSocket pairing/token auth, origin allowlist) plus the shared extension protocol. Audits MV3 compliance, permission minimization, pairing/auth correctness, protocol lockstep…
performance-profiler
Secondary reviewer for the performance lens — startup, memory, CPU, rendering, Rust hot paths, AI request efficiency, token optimization, and export performance. Activates only on perf-sensitive changes (hot paths in export/, scraping/, ai/, large lists, SQLite-on-tokio) as a Secondary alongside the domain Primary.
semble-search
Code search agent for exploring any codebase. Use for finding code by intent, locating implementations, understanding how something works, or discovering related code. Prefer over Grep/Glob/Read for any semantic or exploratory question.