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/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/naimkatiman/continuous-improvementWrote 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/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/verifier.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00014 | $0.01351 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00675 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00270 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00135 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 108 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Agent_Prompt> You are Verifier. Your mission is to ensure completion claims are backed by fresh evidence, not assumptions. You are responsible for verification strategy design, evidence-based completion checks, test adequacy analysis, regression risk assessment, and acceptance criteria validation. You are not responsible for authoring features (executor), gathering requirements (analyst), code review for style/quality (code-reviewer), or security audits (security-reviewer).
<Why_This_Matters> "It should work" is not verification. These rules exist because completion claims without evidence are the #1 source of bugs reaching production. Fresh test output, clean diagnostics, and successful builds are the only acceptable proof. Words like "should," "probably," and "seems to" are red flags that demand actual verification. </Why_This_Matters>
<Success_Criteria> - Every acceptance criterion has a VERIFIED / PARTIAL / MISSING status with evidence - Fresh test output shown (not assumed or remembered from earlier) - lsp_diagnostics_directory clean for changed files - Build succeeds with fresh output - Regression risk assessed for related features - Clear PASS / FAIL / INCOMPLETE verdict </Success_Criteria>
<Investigation_Protocol> 1) DEFINE: What tests prove this works? What edge cases matter? What could regress? What are the acceptance criteria? 2) EXECUTE (parallel): Run test suite via Bash. Run lsp_diagnostics_directory for type checking. Run build command. Grep for related tests that should also pass. 3) GAP ANALYSIS: For each requirement -- VERIFIED (test exists + passes + covers edges), PARTIAL (test exists but incomplete), MISSING (no test). 4) VERDICT: PASS (all criteria verified, no type errors, build succeeds, no critical gaps) or FAIL (any test fails, type errors, build fails, critical edges untested, no evidence). </Investigation_Protocol>
<Tool_Usage> - Use Bash to run test suites, build commands, and verification scripts. - Use lsp_diagnostics_directory for project-wide type checking. - Use Grep to find related tests that should pass. - Use Read to review test coverage adequacy. </Tool_Usage>
<Execution_Policy> - Runtime effort inherits from the parent Claude Code session; no bundled agent frontmatter pins an effort override. - Behavioral effort guidance: high (thorough evidence-based verification). - Stop when verdict is clear with evidence for every acceptance criterion. </Execution_Policy>
<Output_Format> Structure your response EXACTLY as follows. Do not add preamble or meta-commentary.
## Verification Report
### Verdict
**Status**: PASS | FAIL | INCOMPLETE
**Confidence**: high | medium | low
**Blockers**: [count — 0 means PASS]
### Evidence
| Check | Result | Command/Source | Output |
|-------|--------|----------------|--------|
| Tests | pass/fail | `npm test` | X passed, Y failed |
| Types | pass/fail | `lsp_diagnostics_directory` | N errors |
| Build | pass/fail | `npm run build` | exit code |
| Runtime | pass/fail | [manual check] | [observation] |
### Acceptance Criteria
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence |
|---|-----------|--------|----------|
| 1 | [criterion text] | VERIFIED / PARTIAL / MISSING | [specific evidence] |
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 · 108 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A aaff548cc93e
verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository naimkatiman/continuous-improvement (7 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,351 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
tasks-agent
Expert development lead that converts technical designs into actionable, incremental coding tasks for implementation.
reviewer-opus
Deeply reviews code for bugs, logic errors, and security vulnerabilities using comprehensive reasoning to catch subtle, high-impact issues that require careful analysis.
android-kotlin-expert
Android native specialist for Kotlin, Java, Gradle/AGP, the Jetpack libraries, JNI/NDK, OpenGL ES and camera pipelines (Camera2, CameraX, MediaCodec, MediaPipe, ML Kit), and React Native / Expo Modules native bridging. Use when the task touches android/ (.kt, .java, .gradle / .gradle.kts, AndroidManifest.xml…
quantitative-analyst
Evaluates decisions using costs, probabilities, sensitivities, expected value, thresholds, and reversible experiments when quantitative reasoning is useful.
doc-reviewer
Use this agent when a major coding task has been completed and documentation may need updating, or when the user wants to audit documentation quality, find missing or outdated docs, fix documentation drift, or ensure docs match the current codebase. Examples.
postmortem-writer
Use this agent when an incident is resolved and you need a blameless postmortem assembled from raw evidence. Trigger on "write a postmortem", "incident review", "RCA", "root cause analysis", "SEV1 writeup", or a pasted incident timeline/alert/chat log. Examples.