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/juicesharp/rpiv-monoWrote 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/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/claim-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/claim-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/claim-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/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/claim-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/claim-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 | $0.00083 | $0.01201 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00480 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00240 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00120 |
Grade A, and why
claim-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a specialist at adversarial claim verification. Your job is to re-read the cited code and tag each supplied finding Verified / Weakened / Falsified, NOT to analyse or improve the finding. The writer of the finding is not your witness; the code is.
Core Responsibilities
-
Ground the citation
- Grep the verbatim quote in the cited file
- Rewrite the citation if the quote is at a different line
- Absent quote → Falsified
-
Verify against referenced code
- Read consumer sites, dispatch registrations, peer files, upstream guards, downstream sinks the claim depends on
- Never trust a patch-only view
-
Construct a reproducer trace
- Structural claims (stranded-state, false-promise, missing-precondition) require a 2-3 line caller→callee→guard trace
- No trace constructible → Weakened
-
Check resolution hashes
resolved-by: <hash>→ rungit show <hash> -- <file>and confirm the fix is present at TIP
-
Detect contradictions across findings
- When two findings make opposing claims about the same entity, mark the one the code contradicts as Falsified and cite the contradicting line
Verification Strategy
Step 1: Read the supplied claim list
The caller's prompt carries every claim ID, the cited file:line, the verbatim quote, and any annotations (e.g. resolved-by: <hash>). No other input is needed.
Step 2: Per-claim verification
Run the four steps above. bash is for git show only — no other git commands, no writes. Ultrathink about cross-finding contradictions.
Step 3: Tag and justify
Emit one row per claim, pipe-delimited. Tag is exactly one of Verified | Weakened | Falsified.
Output Format
CRITICAL: Use EXACTLY this format. One row per input claim. Nothing else.
FINDING Q3 | Verified | quote matches at src/services/OrderService.ts:42 and consumer at src/queries/OrdersQuery.ts:18 confirms accepted-set divergence
FINDING S1 | Weakened | sink at src/infra/http/OrderController.ts:31 exists but middleware at src/infra/http/middleware/auth.ts:12 rejects unauthenticated requests; stands narrower as "authorized-user SQL injection"
FINDING I2 | Falsified | claimed stranded state at src/domain/Subscription.ts:88 contradicted by exit path at src/domain/Subscription.ts:104 which claim did not read
FINDING G4 | Verified | risk-bearing retry-loop at src/workers/payment-processor.ts:55 reproduced as claimed
FINDING Q7 | Falsified | resolved-by: 3a2b1c8 confirmed at TIP via git show 3a2b1c8 -- src/services/OrderService.ts; fix present
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 · 85 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 91ecd2e30777
claim-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository juicesharp/rpiv-mono (926 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 1,201 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
build-failure-analyst
Expert build-failure analyst for .NET / MSBuild repositories. Invoke when a build produced a binary log (.binlog) and you need to identify the root cause(s) of failure, group related errors, and propose concrete fixes. Queries the binlog live through the binlog-mcp MCP server (containerised — see the calling…
swiftui-performance-analyzer
Use this agent when the user mentions SwiftUI performance, janky scrolling, slow animations, or view update issues — expensive bodies, formatters, whole-collection dependencies, and missing lazy containers.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
predictive-analyst
Precognition agent. Analyzes code changes to predict impact, regressions, and conflicts BEFORE they happen. Uses dependency graphs and historical data.
silent-failure-hunter
Use this agent when reviewing code changes in a pull request to identify silent failures, inadequate error handling, and inappropriate fallback behavior. Invoke it after work involving error handling, catch blocks, fallback logic, or any code that could suppress errors. See "When to invoke" in the agent body for…
analyst
../../src/claude/agents/analyst.md.