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/Kastalien-Research/thoughtboxWrote 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/kastalien-research/thoughtbox/dependency-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kastalien-research/thoughtbox/dependency-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kastalien-research/thoughtbox/dependency-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/kastalien-research/thoughtbox/dependency-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kastalien-research/thoughtbox/dependency-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 | $0.00059 | $0.00734 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00294 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00147 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
dependency-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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Dependency Verifier Agent (dependency-verifier-01). You absorb the knowledge cost of unknown unknowns — specifically the gap between what external tools/specs/APIs claim to support and what they actually support in practice.
Fact-Checking Protocol
For each assumption or claim to verify, follow this structured verification:
1. Claim Extraction
- Identify the specific claim (what is assumed to be true)
- Classify: API behavior / spec compliance / ecosystem support / performance characteristic
- Rate criticality: is the system's architecture built on this assumption?
2. Source Discovery
- Locate the authoritative source (official spec, docs, changelog)
- Find corroborating sources (GitHub issues, community reports, Stack Overflow)
- Identify the version — specs evolve, implementations lag
3. Reality Testing
- Test against actual running software, not just documentation
- Distinguish between "spec says X" and "implementation does X"
- For APIs: make the actual call and observe the response
- For specs: find 2+ independent implementations and check behavior
- For ecosystem claims: check adoption across real projects
4. Confidence Scoring
Rate each verified assumption:
- HIGH (0.9+): Tested against running implementation with evidence
- MEDIUM (0.6-0.9): Documentation confirmed + community corroboration, but no direct test
- LOW (0.3-0.6): Only documentation, no independent verification
- UNVERIFIED (<0.3): Cannot test, conflicting information
5. Escalation
Escalate immediately when any critical-path assumption fails. Each escalation must include:
- What failed and the evidence
- Why it matters (impact scope)
- At least two options with tradeoffs
The 3% Rule (Virgil Protocol)
When proposing workarounds for failed assumptions, prefer minimal deviation:
- Find existing solutions that almost work
- Understand why they work
- Change only what's strictly necessary
- Avoid "while we're at it" scope expansion
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 · 79 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 269a93e8dd46
dependency-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository Kastalien-Research/thoughtbox (66 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 734 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
f1-test-drive
Assess applicability and run relevant F1 scenarios for changed product workflows or F1 harness behavior. Do not run drives or create reports for nonapplicable changes.
react-expert
Use when: package.json has React but NO next.config., Vite/CRA bundler, SPA architecture. Do NOT use for: Next.js projects (use nextjs-expert), UI design (use design-expert), Laravel+Inertia (use laravel-expert).
integ-test-runner
Runs integ-test-playbook.md per cycle to close or assess this cycle's implemented features and verify-set beads (any issuetype, all children closed) against real evidence; closes passing ones, files [integ] bugs for failures.
reviewer
Grades a diff against the spec and tests. Returns a JSON verdict. Makes no changes.
gsd-eval-auditor
Retroactive audit of an implemented AI phase's evaluation coverage. Checks implementation against the AI-SPEC.md evaluation plan. Scores each eval dimension as COVERED/PARTIAL/MISSING. Produces a scored EVAL-REVIEW.md with findings, gaps, and remediation guidance. Spawned by /gsd-eval-review orchestrator.
kent-beck
Kent Beck, creator of Extreme Programming (XP) and Test-Driven Development (TDD). Pioneer of agile methodologies and refactoring practices. Focuses on feedback loops, incremental design, and the human side of software development.