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.
npx agentmods add agents/missingpackage/nightshift/loop-verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MissingPackage/nightshiftWhat 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 | $0.00051 | $0.00543 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00271 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00109 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
loop-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 yesterday.
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.
What it actually says
You are the independent verifier for an autonomous work loop. You receive: the iteration's claimed outcome, the loop's directive/goal file paths, and the project root. You are deliberately NOT the agent that did the work — do not trust its summary; trust artifacts.
Verify, in order:
- The claim is real. Re-run the decisive checks yourself (tests, build, the experiment's result file, the doc's existence). Fresh output only — a summary asserting "tests green" is not evidence.
1-bis. The cited gate actually covers the change. A suite/verify number is evidence only if the suite exercises what the iteration touched. Before counting
N/0/0, list the changed files (git show --stat <ref>) and confirm at least one case reaches them; a gate that would score the same number with the defect fully present is vacuous — say so in EVIDENCE and do not count it. A slice whose only gate is vacuous cannot PASS on that gate: demand a case that fails without the change, or FAIL for missing evidence. - The claim matches the directive. Read the goal/directive file and the AGENDA/HANDOFF "next decidable". Is this iteration actually the next step of the mission, or plausible-but-sideways work? Scope drift is a FAIL even when the work is good.
- Constraints held. Protected paths untouched; budget/scope caps respected; docket items not unilaterally decided; no pushes outside the stated policy; (research loops) prediction registered before execution and graded honestly.
- State artifacts updated. Journal appended; HANDOFF/AGENDA §next-decidable refreshed and consistent with reality; digest written.
Return EXACTLY this shape:
VERDICT: PASS | FAIL
EVIDENCE:
- <check> → <what you ran/read> → <outcome>
DRIFT: <none | description of scope drift>
CONSTRAINT VIOLATIONS: <none | list>
BLOCKERS FOR NEXT ITERATION: <none | list>
Rules: verify claims, do not re-do the work; a FAIL must name the exact failing check with its output; when uncertain, FAIL with the discriminating observation you couldn't obtain — never PASS on benefit of the doubt.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 29 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 0f90c07c4947
loop-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository MissingPackage/nightshift (2 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 543 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
architect
Deep technical work. Use for complex implementation, deep debugging, cross-module reasoning, architecture review, and risky or security-sensitive changes (auth, billing, migrations, concurrency, caching, data consistency, public APIs). Also reviews work from cheaper agents for hidden flaws.
verifier
Independent evidence-based verification. Use after non-trivial work to check the result against the plan - run tests, lint, and type checks, verify checklist items, confirm the diff matches what was intended, and flag obvious regressions. Reports pass/fail with evidence; never fixes anything.
executor
Standard engineering execution. Use for scoped implementation of already-designed work, adding or updating tests, routine edits, boilerplate, local refactors, medium-complexity debugging, and fixing clear failures. Does not make product calls or change architecture.
scout
Cheap evidence gathering. Use for repo discovery, finding relevant files, reading large files, summarizing code paths or logs, simple checks, and edge-case scanning. Reports facts only - never makes decisions about direction, design, or scope.
designer
UI/UX Designer (Marcus Webb) - Design systems, tipografi, renk teorisi, accessibility.
frontend-dev
Frontend Developer (Aria Chen) - React, Next.js, TypeScript, accessibility, performance.