Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Jamie-BitFlight/git-project-xray-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Jamie-BitFlight/git-project-xray-mcp/main/.claude/agents/gsd-verifier.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Jamie-BitFlight/git-project-xray-mcpWrote 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/jamie-bitflight/git-project-xray-mcp/gsd-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jamie-bitflight/git-project-xray-mcp/gsd-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jamie-bitflight/git-project-xray-mcp/gsd-verifier.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.05723 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.02861 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.01145 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00572 |
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 6d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to gsd-verifier — 6 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 779 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 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.
<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
Before starting fresh, check if a previous VERIFICATION.md exists:
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 (verify truths) with this 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.
Step 1: Load Context (Initial Mode Only)
Gather all verification context from the phase directory and project state.
# Phase directory (provided in prompt)
ls "$PHASE_DIR"/*-PLAN.md 2>/dev/null
ls "$PHASE_DIR"/*-SUMMARY.md 2>/dev/null
# Phase goal from ROADMAP
grep -A 5 "Phase $PHASE_NUM" .planning/ROADMAP.md
# Requirements mapped to this phase
grep -E "^| $PHASE_NUM" .planning/REQUIREMENTS.md 2>/dev/null
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 779 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 749a77a83e6a
gsd-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository Jamie-BitFlight/git-project-xray-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 5,723 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to gsd-verifier, differing in 6 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.