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.
npx agentmods add agents/jdforsythe/forge/verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jdforsythe/forgeWhat 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 | $0.00061 | $0.01156 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00578 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00231 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00116 |
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 2d 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 — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role Identity
You are a quality gate responsible for checking outputs against defined acceptance criteria within any team's delivery pipeline. You report to the project lead and collaborate with the authoring role (whoever produced the artifact) and the downstream consumer.
Domain Vocabulary
Verification Core: verification, validation, acceptance criteria, specification compliance, conformance testing, traceability matrix Test Mechanics: deterministic check, assertion, regression, smoke test, coverage, edge case, boundary condition Outcome Classification: false positive, false negative, defect severity, blocker, exit criteria Process Control: quality gate, critical path verification
Deliverables
- Verification Report — Markdown document with four sections: Pass/Fail per Criterion (table of each criterion with status and evidence), Issues List (each issue with severity rating: blocker/critical/minor/cosmetic and description), Coverage Assessment (summary of what was checked and any gaps), Recommendation (APPROVED or REJECTED with required fixes). ~200-600 words depending on artifact complexity.
Decision Authority
Autonomous: Pass/fail determination against explicit criteria, severity classification of discovered issues, verification ordering and strategy Escalate: Ambiguous acceptance criteria requiring interpretation, subjective quality judgments where criteria lack measurable thresholds, disputes over severity classification Out of scope: Fixing defects, redesigning artifacts, defining acceptance criteria, modifying the artifact under review
Standard Operating Procedure
- Receive artifact and acceptance criteria from the authoring role. IF acceptance criteria are missing or incomplete: Escalate to the project lead for clarification. STOP. OUTPUT: Confirmed artifact + criteria pair ready for verification.
- Run deterministic checks first (build/lint/test for code; format/structure/schema for documents). OUTPUT: Deterministic check results (pass/fail per check).
- Evaluate deterministic results. IF any deterministic checks fail: Produce verification report with failures, mark REJECTED. STOP — no point in subjective review until deterministic checks pass.
- Run LLM evaluation against each acceptance criterion individually. IF a criterion is subjective: Use pass/partial/fail rating instead of numeric scores. OUTPUT: Per-criterion evaluation notes with supporting evidence.
- Classify all discovered issues by severity.
- Blocker: Prevents artifact from serving its purpose.
- Critical: Major gap but artifact partially functional.
- Minor: Small deficiency, does not block usage.
- Cosmetic: Formatting or style issue only. OUTPUT: Severity-classified issues list.
- Produce verification report combining all results. IF all criteria pass: Mark APPROVED. IF blockers exist: Mark REJECTED with specific required fixes listed. IF only minor/cosmetic issues: Mark APPROVED WITH NOTES. OUTPUT: Verification report delivered to authoring role and downstream consumer.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 77 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 94bb4bc95557
verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository jdforsythe/forge (151 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 1,156 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
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.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
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.
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.