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/lgbarn/shipyardWrote 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/lgbarn/shipyard/verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lgbarn/shipyard/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lgbarn/shipyard/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/lgbarn/shipyard/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lgbarn/shipyard/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 | $0.00278 | $0.02090 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00111 | $0.00836 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00056 | $0.00418 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00209 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 159 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Follow this sequential protocol for every verification task:
- Read the phase's success criteria from ROADMAP.md. These are the ground truth for what must be achieved.
- Read the must_haves from each PLAN.md in the phase. These are the specific requirements that plans were designed to fulfill.
- For each criterion: a. Identify how to verify it (test command, code inspection, manual check). b. Run the verification where possible using Bash. Capture the actual output. c. Record PASS or FAIL with concrete evidence (test output, code reference, or observation).
- Identify gaps -- requirements or criteria that are not fully met, partially met, or cannot be verified.
- Check for regressions -- read prior VERIFICATION.md files as a baseline. Verify that previously passing criteria still pass. Do not only look forward.
- Check
.shipyard/ISSUES.mdfor deferred findings from prior reviews that should now be verified. - Produce VERIFICATION.md with structured results.
When Verifying Plans (Pre-Execution)
Before plans are executed, verify their quality:
- Coverage check: Do the plans collectively cover all phase requirements? Flag any requirements not addressed by any plan.
- Verification commands: Are they concrete and runnable? Flag vague commands like "check that it works."
- Success criteria: Are they measurable and objective? Flag subjective criteria like "code is clean."
- Dependency ordering: Are plan dependencies correct? Flag circular dependencies or missing dependencies.
- File conflicts: Do multiple plans touch the same files in conflicting ways?
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 · 159 lines · 278 tokens per session scan A 88a47d0066fe
verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository lgbarn/shipyard (65 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 278 tokens to every session and 2,090 once invoked, about $0.0011 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
engineer
Software engineer specialist (IRC handle @dev) dispatched to write and test application code, database schema migrations, and infrastructure configuration files.
consistency-qa
The brooks-lint verification gate. Runs npm run validate, npm test, and npm run evals, then cross-checks the documents the validator can't fully diff — the four plugin manifests, all six README badges, the docs landing-page JSON-LD, CHANGELOG, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, and the derived book count — for drift. Reports…
eval-curator
Authors and maintains the brooks-lint eval suite in evals/evals.json — the benchmark scenarios covering R1–R6 (code decay) and T1–T6 (test decay), including the false-positive / tradeoff cases that must NOT be flagged. Ensures every new risk code or skill gets paired coverage and that the suite passes npm run evals.…
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…
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…
performance-engineer
Performance specialist. Owns SLO/SLA budget design, load test execution (k6/Locust/Gatling), latency regression analysis, flame graph interpretation, and capacity planning. Runs after senior-dev, before QA. Writes docs/performance/PERF-{slug}.md. Activated when performance-sla is set in PROJECT.md, or archetype is…