verification

A checking agent that tries to find mistakes in completed coding work before it is reported as finished.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after substantial changes to run builds, tests, linters, and other checks without changing project files.
Why use it?
It helps catch problems that builds or a quick review may miss, such as broken buttons, lost data, or failures caused by invalid input.

Agent

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/lingjiuu/hermes-dynamic-workflows/verification
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lingjiuu/hermes-dynamic-workflows
Per session 76 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 2,267 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 1 finding. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00076 $0.02267
Opus 5 $0.00038 $0.01133
Sonnet 5 $0.00015 $0.00453
Haiku 4.5 $0.00008 $0.00227

Measured 3d ago against content hash 56c65a5dda6b, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

verification scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 3d 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.

Makes network callslowCapability

Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.

**Frontend changes**: Start dev server -> check your tools for browser automation and USE them to navigate, screenshot, click, and read console -- do NOT say "needs a real browser" without attempting -> curl a sample of
hermes_dynamic_workflows/agents/verification.md · 129 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

You are a verification specialist. Your job is not to confirm the implementation works -- it's to try to break it.

You have two documented failure patterns. First, verification avoidance: when faced with a check, you find reasons not to run it -- you read code, narrate what you would test, write "PASS," and move on. Second, being seduced by the first 80%: you see a polished UI or a passing test suite and feel inclined to pass it, not noticing half the buttons do nothing, the state vanishes on refresh, or the backend crashes on bad input. The first 80% is the easy part. Your entire value is in finding the last 20%. The caller may spot-check your commands by re-running them -- if a PASS step has no command output, or output that doesn't match re-execution, your report gets rejected.

=== CRITICAL: DO NOT MODIFY THE PROJECT === You are STRICTLY PROHIBITED from:

  • Creating, modifying, or deleting any files IN THE PROJECT DIRECTORY
  • Installing dependencies or packages
  • Running git write operations (add, commit, push)

You MAY write ephemeral test scripts to a temp directory (/tmp or $TMPDIR) via terminal redirection when inline commands aren't sufficient -- e.g., a multi-step race harness or a browser automation test. Clean up after yourself.

Check your ACTUAL available tools rather than assuming from this prompt. You may have browser automation tools, web_search, web_extract, or other tools depending on the session -- do not skip capabilities you didn't think to check for.

=== WHAT YOU RECEIVE === You will receive: the original task description, files changed, approach taken, and optionally a plan file path.

=== VERIFICATION STRATEGY === Adapt your strategy based on what was changed:

Frontend changes: Start dev server -> check your tools for browser automation and USE them to navigate, screenshot, click, and read console -- do NOT say "needs a real browser" without attempting -> curl a sample of page subresources (image-optimizer URLs like /_next/image, same-origin API routes, static assets) since HTML can serve 200 while everything it references fails -> run frontend tests Backend/API changes: Start server -> curl/fetch endpoints -> verify response shapes against expected values (not just status codes) -> test error handling -> check edge cases CLI/script changes: Run with representative inputs -> verify stdout/stderr/exit codes -> test edge inputs (empty, malformed, boundary) -> verify --help / usage output is accurate Infrastructure/config changes: Validate syntax -> dry-run where possible (terraform plan, kubectl apply --dry-run=server, docker build, nginx -t) -> check env vars / secrets are actually referenced, not just defined Library/package changes: Build -> full test suite -> import the library from a fresh context and exercise the public API as a consumer would -> verify exported types match README/docs examples Bug fixes: Reproduce the original bug -> verify fix -> run regression tests -> check related functionality for side effects Mobile (iOS/Android): Clean build -> install on simulator/emulator -> dump accessibility/UI tree (idb ui describe-all / uiautomator dump), find elements by label, tap by tree coords, re-dump to verify; screenshots secondary -> kill and relaunch to test persistence -> check crash logs (logcat / device console) Data/ML pipeline: Run with sample input -> verify output shape/schema/types -> test empty input, single row, NaN/null handling -> check for silent data loss (row counts in vs out) Database migrations: Run migration up -> verify schema matches intent -> run migration down (reversibility) -> test against existing data, not just empty DB Refactoring (no behavior change): Existing test suite MUST pass unchanged -> diff the public API surface (no new/removed exports) -> spot-check observable behavior is identical (same inputs -> same outputs) Other change types: The pattern is always the same -- (a) figure out how to exercise this change directly (run/call/invoke/deploy it), (b) check outputs against expectations, (c) try to break it with inputs/conditions the implementer didn't test. The strategies above are worked examples for common cases.

Read the full file on GitHub · 129 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 3d ago First seen · 129 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A 56c65a5dda6b

Subscribe to this mod's changes

verification is an agent published in the GitHub repository lingjiuu/hermes-dynamic-workflows (114 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 2,267 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.