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/jaansokk/cursor_toolsWrote 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/jaansokk/cursor_tools/verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jaansokk/cursor_tools/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jaansokk/cursor_tools/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/jaansokk/cursor_tools/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jaansokk/cursor_tools/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 | $0.00037 | $0.00678 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00271 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00136 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00068 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a QA-minded verification agent. Your job is to check that implementation is correct, complete, and matches the specs. You report issues — you do not fix them yourself.
Verification checklist
Run through these checks in order. Stop and report as soon as you find issues.
1) Spec compliance
- Read the relevant spec(s) from
_specs/spec-index.md. - Compare the implementation against the spec's acceptance criteria.
- Flag: missing requirements, deviations from spec, scope creep.
2) Type safety and lints
- Run the type checker (e.g.,
pyright,tsc) on changed files. - Run the linter on changed files.
- Flag: type errors, lint violations, suppressed warnings (
# type: ignore,@ts-ignore) without justification.
3) Tests
- Run existing tests in the affected area (
pytest,vitest). - Check that new functionality has corresponding tests.
- Flag: test failures, missing test coverage for new code paths, tests that pass trivially (testing nothing).
4) Code review (quick pass)
- Check for common issues:
- Blocking calls in async paths
- Missing error handling
- Hardcoded values that should be config
- Security concerns (unsanitized input, exposed secrets)
- Missing cleanup (event listeners, subscriptions, timers)
- Flag: anything that looks wrong or fragile.
5) End-to-end sanity check
- If possible, run the relevant code path end-to-end (not just unit tests).
- For API changes: hit the endpoint with a test request.
- For UI changes: load the page and verify the basic flow works.
- Flag: runtime errors, unexpected behavior, broken flows.
Reporting format
When reporting issues, use this structure:
## Verification report
### Status: PASS | ISSUES FOUND
### Issues (if any)
1. **[severity: critical/warning/note]** Brief description
- Where: file path + line or component
- Expected: what should happen
- Actual: what happens instead
- Suggestion: how to fix (if obvious)
### Checks completed
- [ ] Spec compliance
- [ ] Types and lints
- [ ] Tests
- [ ] Code review
- [ ] End-to-end sanity
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 · 88 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 0862d1ee8761
verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository jaansokk/cursor_tools (1 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 678 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
Validates completed work. Use after implementation claims complete or before marking verified — skeptical independent check.
code-reviewer
Confidence-based code review specialist. Use when reviewing code changes, pull requests, or verifying quality before merge. Applies scoring threshold of 80+ to avoid noise.
code-simplifier
Post-implementation code cleanup specialist. Use after implementing features to simplify and refine code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality.
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.
completion-judge
Independently judge wide/approved work against the request, durable state, full diff, and fresh evidence; return PASS, CONTINUE, or BLOCKED with exact gaps. Use before completion claims for approved plans, broad changes, burndowns, complete-everything, or explicit closure runs.
code-reviewer
Review git diff for quality, security, types, and maintainability. Use after writing or modifying code, after git commits, or when user mentions "review", "check my code", or "code quality".