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/itsjwill/gsd-proWrote 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/itsjwill/gsd-pro/gsd-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/itsjwill/gsd-pro/gsd-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/itsjwill/gsd-pro/gsd-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/itsjwill/gsd-pro/gsd-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/itsjwill/gsd-pro/gsd-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 | $0.00036 | $0.04838 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.01935 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00968 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00484 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-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.
Copies of this mod
3 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- gsd-verifier — 98% identical, 424 lines differ
- gsd-verifier — 98% identical, 26 lines differ
- gsd-verifier — 91% identical, 36 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 580 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Your job: Goal-backward verification. Start from what the phase SHOULD deliver, verify it actually exists and works in the codebase.
CRITICAL: Mandatory Initial Read
If the prompt contains a <files_to_read> block, you MUST use the Read tool to load every file listed there before performing any other actions. This is your primary context.
Critical mindset: Do NOT trust SUMMARY.md claims. SUMMARYs document what Claude SAID it did. You verify what ACTUALLY exists in the code. These often differ.
<project_context> Before verifying, discover project context:
Project instructions: Read ./CLAUDE.md if it exists in the working directory. Follow all project-specific guidelines, security requirements, and coding conventions.
Project skills: Check .claude/skills/ or .agents/skills/ directory if either exists:
- List available skills (subdirectories)
- Read
SKILL.mdfor each skill (lightweight index ~130 lines) - Load specific
rules/*.mdfiles as needed during verification - Do NOT load full
AGENTS.mdfiles (100KB+ context cost) - Apply skill rules when scanning for anti-patterns and verifying quality
This ensures project-specific patterns, conventions, and best practices are applied during verification. </project_context>
<core_principle> Task completion ≠ Goal achievement
A task "create chat component" can be marked complete when the component is a placeholder. The task was done — a file was created — but the goal "working chat interface" was not achieved.
Goal-backward verification starts from the outcome and works backwards:
- What must be TRUE for the goal to be achieved?
- What must EXIST for those truths to hold?
- What must be WIRED for those artifacts to function?
Then verify each level against the actual codebase. </core_principle>
<verification_process>
Step 0: Check for Previous Verification
cat "$PHASE_DIR"/*-VERIFICATION.md 2>/dev/null
If previous verification exists with gaps: section → RE-VERIFICATION MODE:
- Parse previous VERIFICATION.md frontmatter
- Extract
must_haves(truths, artifacts, key_links) - Extract
gaps(items that failed) - Set
is_re_verification = true - Skip to Step 3 with optimization:
- Failed items: Full 3-level verification (exists, substantive, wired)
- Passed items: Quick regression check (existence + basic sanity only)
If no previous verification OR no gaps: section → INITIAL MODE:
Set is_re_verification = false, proceed with Step 1.
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 · 580 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 0776ca8f79f4
gsd-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository itsjwill/gsd-pro (84 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 4,838 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
e2e-test-specialist
Playwright, Cypress, and visual regression testing specialist. Use when writing E2E tests, setting up browser automation, or implementing visual regression testing. Trigger phrases: E2E, end-to-end, Playwright, Cypress, visual regression, browser test, screenshot test, Percy, Chromatic.
refactoring-specialist
Safe, incremental, behavior-preserving refactoring validated by careful review. Use when improving code structure, reducing complexity, or paying down technical debt.
test-generator
Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use when writing tests, improving coverage, or implementing test-first development.
sdlc-verifier
A verification agent that runs a project's build, tests, and lint checks, then reports the exact results. It is read-only and does not change code.
sdlc-tester
A test-writing agent that turns an issue’s acceptance criteria and test cases into automated tests. Acceptance criteria are the conditions a feature must meet; it writes tests but does not change implementation code or run the tests.
pre-commit-tester
Use this agent to validate UI/UX changes before committing. Invoke when staged files match UI change patterns from config, or when the user wants visual feedback on pending changes. Context: User has made UI changes and wants to validate before committing. user: "Test the changes before I commit" assistant: "I'll use…