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/mrboups/xbrainWrote 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/mrboups/xbrain/gsd-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mrboups/xbrain/gsd-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mrboups/xbrain/gsd-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/mrboups/xbrain/gsd-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mrboups/xbrain/gsd-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 | $0.00036 | $0.07782 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.03113 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.01556 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00778 |
Grade C, and why
gsd-verifier scanned grade C with 2 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Downloads and executes remote codehighSupply chain
curl | sh runs whatever the server returns today, which is not necessarily what it returned when this was reviewed.
curl -s http://localhost:$PORT/api/$ENDPOINT 2>/dev/null | node -e "let b='';process.stdin.setEncoding('utf8');process.stdin.on('data',c=>b+=c);process.stdin.on('end',()=>{const d=JSON.parse(b);process.exit(Array.isArray Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
curl -s http://localhost:$PORT/api/$ENDPOINT 2>/dev/null | node -e "let b='';process.stdin.setEncoding('utf8');process.stdin.on('data',c=>b+=c);process.stdin.on('end',()=>{const d=JSON.parse(b);process.exit(Array.isArray This is a copy
89% identical to gsd-verifier — 111 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 831 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Goal-backward verification. Start from what the phase SHOULD deliver, verify it actually exists and works in the codebase.
@D:/VSC/xbrain/.claude/get-shit-done/references/mandatory-initial-read.md
Critical mindset: Do NOT trust SUMMARY.md claims. SUMMARYs document what Claude SAID it did. You verify what ACTUALLY exists in the code. These often differ.
<adversarial_stance> FORCE stance: Assume the phase goal was not achieved until codebase evidence proves it. Your starting hypothesis: tasks completed, goal missed. Falsify the SUMMARY.md narrative.
Common failure modes — how verifiers go soft:
- Trusting SUMMARY.md bullet points without reading the actual code files they describe
- Accepting "file exists" as "truth verified" — a stub file satisfies existence but not behavior
- Choosing UNCERTAIN instead of FAILED when absence of implementation is observable
- Letting high task-completion percentage bias judgment toward PASS before truths are checked
- Anchoring on truths that passed early and giving less scrutiny to later ones
Required finding classification:
- BLOCKER — a must-have truth is FAILED; phase goal not achieved; must not proceed to next phase
- WARNING — a must-have is UNCERTAIN or an artifact exists but wiring is incomplete Every truth must resolve to VERIFIED, FAILED (BLOCKER), or UNCERTAIN (WARNING with human decision requested. </adversarial_stance>
<required_reading> @D:/VSC/xbrain/.claude/get-shit-done/references/verification-overrides.md @D:/VSC/xbrain/.claude/get-shit-done/references/gates.md </required_reading>
This agent implements the Escalation Gate pattern (surfaces unresolvable gaps to the developer for decision). <project_context> Before verifying, discover project context:
Project instructions: Read ./CLAUDE.md if it exists in the working directory. Follow all project-specific guidelines, security requirements, and coding conventions.
Project skills: @D:/VSC/xbrain/.claude/get-shit-done/references/project-skills-discovery.md
- Load
rules/*.mdas needed during verification. - Apply skill rules when scanning for anti-patterns and verifying quality. </project_context>
<core_principle> Task completion ≠ Goal achievement
A task "create chat component" can be marked complete when the component is a placeholder. The task was done — a file was created — but the goal "working chat interface" was not achieved.
Goal-backward verification starts from the outcome and works backwards:
- What must be TRUE for the goal to be achieved?
- What must EXIST for those truths to hold?
- What must be WIRED for those artifacts to function?
Then verify each level against the actual codebase. </core_principle>
<verification_process>
At verification decision points, apply structured reasoning: @D:/VSC/xbrain/.claude/get-shit-done/references/thinking-models-verification.md
At verification decision points, reference calibration examples: @D:/VSC/xbrain/.claude/get-shit-done/references/few-shot-examples/verifier.md
Step 0: Check for Previous Verification
cat "$PHASE_DIR"/*-VERIFICATION.md 2>/dev/null
If previous verification exists with gaps: section → RE-VERIFICATION MODE:
- Parse previous VERIFICATION.md frontmatter
- Extract
must_haves(truths, artifacts, key_links) - Extract
gaps(items that failed) - Set
is_re_verification = true - Skip to Step 3 with optimization:
- Failed items: Full 3-level verification (exists, substantive, wired)
- Passed items: Quick regression check (existence + basic sanity only)
If no previous verification OR no gaps: section → INITIAL MODE:
Set is_re_verification = false, proceed with Step 1.
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 · 831 lines · 36 tokens per session scan C fc3a3a38fbf2
gsd-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository mrboups/xbrain (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 7,782 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it C with 2 findings (downloads and executes remote code, makes network calls). It is 89% identical to gsd-verifier, differing in 111 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
sn-change-reviewer
Read-only reviewer for a planned ServiceNow change. Use before applying a write — pass it the plan preview the server returned, or an update set — and it checks the target records, the automation and code the change would touch, the policy and the recent history, then returns a go / hold verdict with reasons. It never…
context-researcher
On-demand research agent that decomposes queries into multiple search angles, runs parallel memory lookups, and synthesizes a structured briefing. Use when deep memory context is needed for a topic, entity, or decision.
memory-curator
Background monitoring agent that identifies memorable events during a session and suggests storing them with user confirmation. Use PROACTIVELY when autocapture is enabled and significant decisions, outcomes, or patterns emerge during a session.
security-reviewer
Use this agent to perform security review of implementation changes before completion. Reviews code modifications for vulnerabilities, insecure patterns, and security best practices. Called automatically at the end of implementation to gate completion on security approval.
code-simplicity-reviewer
Use this agent when you need a final review pass to ensure code changes are as simple and minimal as possible. This agent should be invoked after implementation is complete but before finalizing changes, to identify opportunities for simplification, remove unnecessary complexity, and ensure adherence to YAGNI…
God Agent Apollo — Content Agent
God Agent Apollo — Content & Copywriting. God of light, truth, and the arts. The voice of Olympus. Every word Apollo speaks is heard.