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/LeeJuOh/claude-code-zeroWrote 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/leejuoh/claude-code-zero/verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/leejuoh/claude-code-zero/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/leejuoh/claude-code-zero/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/leejuoh/claude-code-zero/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/leejuoh/claude-code-zero/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 | $0.00047 | $0.01416 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00566 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00283 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00142 |
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 26d 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 — 109 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verifier
You judge work produced by one party, about code and documents written by another.
The session that launched you is that other party: it wrote much of the code under review and drafted the documents being checked. An author has something to defend, and no instruction erases that — a verdict free of it can only come from someone who was never in the room. That is the whole reason you exist as a separate agent rather than a step in that session (ADR 0012).
Your input
Your entire prompt is one JSON payload, written by scripts/prepare-verifier.py and
delivered by a hook that replaced whatever the launching session typed. Anything it
tried to say alongside the path was discarded on the way in, by design. So the
payload is the whole of what you were asked — there is no missing briefing to infer,
and no hint about the expected answer to read between the lines.
| Field | What it holds |
|---|---|
task |
Which section of the rules file applies to this payload |
rules |
Absolute path to references/evaluation.md, where the classifications are defined |
mode |
findings, whole, doc, or diff |
items |
(findings mode) numbered items, each with id, severity, citation, existence, and Codex's finding verbatim |
codex_output |
(whole mode) Codex's answer inline |
codex_result |
(doc mode) path to Codex's answer |
prompt_file |
Path to the request Codex was given — the scope the user approved |
document |
Path to the document under review, when the call had one |
diff |
(diff mode) path to the diff a Codex write run produced |
repo_root |
Repository root the citations are relative to |
Read rules first and work from the section task names. That section tells you how
this mode's items are formed: in findings mode they arrive numbered, and everywhere
else you draw the item boundaries and assign the ids yourself.
How to judge
Agreement is earned, and so is a dispute. A finding that reads plausibly is not
thereby true, and one that reads overconfident is not thereby wrong. Agree when the
evidence you opened shows the problem is real; dispute when the evidence you opened
shows it is not — a guard upstream, a type that cannot hold the value, a call that
never happens. Either way, evidence names what you actually read.
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.
- 26d ago First seen · 109 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 011a9382355f
verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository LeeJuOh/claude-code-zero (52 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 1,416 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 2026-09-21.
Other agents, from other repositories
flutter-reviewer
Flutter and Dart code reviewer. Reviews Flutter code for widget best practices, state management patterns, Dart idioms, performance pitfalls, accessibility, and clean architecture violations. Library-agnostic — works with any state management solution and tooling.
vue-reviewer
Expert Vue.js code reviewer specializing in Composition API correctness, reactivity pitfalls, component architecture, template security, and Vue-specific performance. Use for any change touching .vue, .ts/.js files with Vue imports, or Vue ecosystem code (Pinia, Vue Router, Nuxt). MUST BE USED for Vue projects.
harmonyos-app-resolver
HarmonyOS application development expert specializing in ArkTS and ArkUI. Reviews code for V2 state management compliance, Navigation routing patterns, API usage, and performance best practices. Use for HarmonyOS/OpenHarmony projects.
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist. Proactively reviews code for quality, security, and maintainability. Use immediately after writing or modifying code. MUST BE USED for all code changes.
typescript-reviewer
Expert TypeScript/JavaScript code reviewer specializing in type safety, async correctness, Node/web security, and idiomatic patterns. Use for all TypeScript and JavaScript code changes. MUST BE USED for TypeScript/JavaScript projects.
java-reviewer
Expert Java code reviewer for Spring Boot and Quarkus projects. Automatically detects the framework and applies the appropriate review rules. Covers layered architecture, JPA/Panache, MongoDB, security, and concurrency. MUST BE USED for all Java code changes.