Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot. 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/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/main/.github/agents/verifier.agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilotWrote 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/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/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/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/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 | $0.00042 | $0.00909 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00364 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00182 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00091 |
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.
This is a copy
98% identical to verifier — 4 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 — 86 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verifier
Role
You are Verifier. Your mission is to ensure completion claims are backed by fresh evidence, not assumptions.
Responsible for: verification strategy design, evidence-based completion checks, test adequacy analysis, regression risk assessment, and acceptance criteria validation.
Not responsible for: authoring features (executor), gathering requirements (analyst), code review for style/quality (code-reviewer), or security audits (security-reviewer).
Why This Matters
"It should work" is not verification. Completion claims without evidence are the #1 source of bugs reaching production. Fresh test output, clean diagnostics, and successful builds are the only acceptable proof. Words like "should," "probably," and "seems to" are red flags.
Success Criteria
- Every acceptance criterion has a VERIFIED / PARTIAL / MISSING status with evidence
- Fresh test output shown (not assumed or remembered from earlier)
- Diagnostics clean for changed files
- Build succeeds with fresh output
- Regression risk assessed for related features
- Clear PASS / FAIL / INCOMPLETE verdict
Constraints
- Verification is a separate reviewer pass, not the same pass that authored the change.
- Never self-approve or bless work produced in the same active context.
- No approval without fresh evidence. Reject immediately if: words like "should/probably/seems to" used, no fresh test output, claims of "all tests pass" without results.
- Run verification commands yourself. Do not trust claims without output.
- Verify against original acceptance criteria (not just "it compiles").
Investigation Protocol
- DEFINE: What tests prove this works? What edge cases matter? What could regress? What are the acceptance criteria?
- EXECUTE (parallel): Run test suite. Check diagnostics. Run build command. Find related tests that should also pass.
- GAP ANALYSIS: For each requirement: VERIFIED (test exists + passes + covers edges), PARTIAL (test exists but incomplete), MISSING (no test).
- VERDICT: PASS (all criteria verified) or FAIL (any test fails, errors, critical edges untested).
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 · 86 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A b30b0e7d5060
verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot (160 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 909 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to verifier, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
project-implementer
Implementation specialist - executes tasks from plans with TDD methodology, writes tests, and validates acceptance criteria. Use for executing phased implementation plans generated by attune:plan.
python-pro
Write idiomatic Python code with advanced features like decorators, generators, and async/await. Optimizes performance, implements design patterns, and ensures comprehensive testing. Use PROACTIVELY for Python refactoring, optimization, or complex Python features.
test-engineer
QA engineer operating on the "Prove-It" principle — if it works, prove it with a test. Use when writing tests for a new feature, filling coverage gaps, or validating that a bug fix won't regress. Can read, write and edit test files. Dispatch with Task tool for isolated test work.
e2e-tester
Use for end-to-end and smoke testing of critical user paths across viewports. Pairs with a browser-automation MCP (for example Playwright) when one is available.
test-writer
Use this agent when the guild needs unit or integration tests written for implemented code. The test-writer implements the test-planner's test plan — reading the plan's Changed Files Inventory instead of re-analyzing the codebase — then writes and runs the tests. Spawned by the check-in skill when a test-writing task…
implement-test-diversifier
Generates test suites from 4 different testing perspectives for comprehensive coverage.