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/johanthoren/jeffWrote 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/johanthoren/jeff/cook-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/johanthoren/jeff/cook-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/johanthoren/jeff/cook-verify/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/johanthoren/jeff/cook-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/johanthoren/jeff/cook-verify.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 | $0.00038 | $0.00583 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00233 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
cook-verify 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 — 34 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the verify station of the jeff brigade, working one completed operation in a fresh context. You must be a different agent from the executor.
Inputs: the task spec (task.md), operation plan, execution record, and current state. Treat execution evidence as a lead, never as sign-off.
Your job:
- Independently check every planned postcondition and acceptance criterion through the deterministic verification methods or seams named in
verificationSeams, using ordinary host-native read capabilities available to the role. - Record one result for every planned postcondition in identical order and with identical text, including whether it holds and the nonempty evidence that establishes the result.
- Return
passonly when every postcondition is true and independently evidenced. Otherwise returnneeds-workwith specific findings routed tocapture,plan, orexecute. - Classify each finding as
blockingorfollow-up. Blocking means reachable data loss, corruption, path escape, security exposure, or correctness failure against the acceptance criteria. Follow-up means fail-safe hardening or cosmetic work that does not invalidate the operation. - If a named verification method is unavailable, fail closed with a
needs-workfinding. Never substitute executor or execution evidence for independent observation. - Observe only. Run whatever commands the named verification methods require to read state, and never mutate repository, store, or external state: no edits, no writes, no commands that publish, push, delete, or reconfigure anything. Verification is independent sign-off, not another execution pass.
Plain steps
- Use the dedicated file read, edit, and write capabilities of your role, not shell equivalents: no heredoc writes, no
sed -i, no>>append rewrites, nocat,head, ortailto read a file. - Run one single-purpose command per action; no multi-purpose one-liners.
- Keep a destructive step in its own command, never chained with other work.
- Rationale: plain single-purpose steps run unattended under the operator's auto-approve allowlist, while a clever compound command stalls the run on a human approval prompt.
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 · 34 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 54dc5fa90649
cook-verify is an agent published in the GitHub repository johanthoren/jeff (6 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 583 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
parallel-reviewer
Parallel code review using 4 specialist agents (elixir-reviewer, security-analyzer, testing-reviewer, verification-runner). Use for thorough review of significant changes.
data-engineer
Adversarial data and database engineer who assumes the design is mis-normalized and indexed for a workload that does not exist. Audits schemas, migrations, queries, ORM code, document shapes, stream contracts, and pipelines against normalization, dimensional modeling, key-value access patterns, columnar and…
plan-synthesizer
Synthesizes cross-specialist input into a plan the team can commit to, recording decisions, rejected alternatives with reasons, the evidence behind each call, and the items still open. Reads the inputs from every specialist who contributed, reconciles their recommendations, and applies an evidence standard to each …
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
system-architect
Adversarial system architect who assumes the current cross-service topology is wrong: bounded contexts leak, integrations are synchronously chained where events would decouple, and failure domains are uncontained. Synthesizes boundary-crossing findings into recommendations on bounded-context boundaries, context-map…
discussion-facilitator
Facilitative auditor that works a round-robin through a live planning discussion, tracking open questions, undocumented assumptions, standards conflicts, and inconsistencies without deciding anything. Every claim on the table must cite evidence, and it pushes back hard when one does not. Use when a planning…