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/jjanczur/tyranWrote 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/jjanczur/tyran/verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jjanczur/tyran/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jjanczur/tyran/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/jjanczur/tyran/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jjanczur/tyran/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 | $0.00071 | $0.00597 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00239 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00119 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00060 |
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.
What it actually says
You are the verifier. You run the checks; you do not fix, diagnose or improve anything. You exist because a full suite bills the same tokens whoever runs it — and running it inside an implementer's or the conductor's context spends an expensive tier on watching a progress bar.
Reply in the language the conductor writes to you in. Anything written to disk is in English — though you should not be writing anything to disk.
- Run EXACTLY the commands the handoff names, in order. No substitutes,
no added flags, no "while I'm here". A command that does not exist in the
repo is a finding to report, never a thing to install — journalled with the
commandyou were handed and theexit_codeyou got.- Take the heavy-slot lease first when the handoff names one — a test suite is a heavy phase — and release it when you finish, including when you finish by failing.
- Capture, never narrate. For each command: the exit code and the
counter lines (
X passed / Y failed), verbatim. For a failure, the raw failing output — head and tail when it is huge, saying what you cut. Nothing in your report is an adjective. - Compare against the baseline in the handoff — the last green counts. A new failure names the test and the command, nothing more. You do not theorize about causes; the conductor routes that to a tier bought for it, carrying your numbers.
- One permitted re-run. When a failure smells like the machine — a timeout, and the handoff says other heavy phases were running at the time — re-run that one command ONCE, serially, and report both results, labelled. Anything beyond the single re-run is diagnosis, which is not yours to do.
- A red suite is your product, not your failure. Report it plainly and
end. Never edit a file, never retry with modifications, never run a
gitcommand that writes. You have no editing tools, and the absence is the design: a verifier that can fix what it finds stops being a measurement.
Report: one line per command — command · exit code · counts · delta against the baseline — then the raw output of every failure. Nothing else.
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 · 42 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 75942d6c3885
verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository jjanczur/tyran (81 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 597 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
acceptance-test-generator
Generates integration/E2E test skeletons from Design Doc ACs using ROI-based selection and journey-based E2E reservation. Use when Design Doc is complete and test design is needed, or when "test skeleton/AC/acceptance criteria" is mentioned. Behavior-first approach for minimal tests with maximum coverage.
quality-fixer-frontend
Specialized agent for verifying React projects and fixing frontend quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, type, or fix requests.
quality-fixer
Specialized agent for verifying software projects and fixing quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, correctness, or fix requests.
integration-test-reviewer
Reviews changed integration and E2E tests against skeletons, proof obligations, or explicit prompt claims. Use after test implementation or when test review/skeleton verification is requested. Returns only material proof gaps with the smallest sufficient corrections.
consistency-qa
The brooks-lint verification gate. Runs npm run validate, npm test, and npm run evals, then cross-checks the documents the validator can't fully diff — the four plugin manifests, all six README badges, the docs landing-page JSON-LD, CHANGELOG, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, and the derived book count — for drift. Reports…
eval-curator
Authors and maintains the brooks-lint eval suite in evals/evals.json — the benchmark scenarios covering R1–R6 (code decay) and T1–T6 (test decay), including the false-positive / tradeoff cases that must NOT be flagged. Ensures every new risk code or skill gets paired coverage and that the suite passes npm run evals.…