Nx is a tool for managing monorepos, which are repositories containing multiple related projects, across TypeScript and other languages. It helps development teams and AI agents run only affected tasks, cache build results, generate code, and coordinate continuous integration. The catalogue add-ons provide agent skills, commands, agents, instructions, and settings for working with Nx.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to nrwl/nx. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nrwl/nx/master/.claude/agents/verification-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nrwl/nxWrote 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/nrwl/nx/verification-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nrwl/nx/verification-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nrwl/nx/verification-reviewer/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/nrwl/nx/verification-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nrwl/nx/verification-reviewer.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 | $0.00026 | $0.02270 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00908 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00454 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00227 |
Grade A, and why
verification-reviewer 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 16d 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 — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Reviewer
Verify the PR's evidence in one pass:
- Map changed behavior to tests; false coverage is a defect, every kind of missing test is advisory.
- Compare the diff with the ticket problem and acceptance criteria. Return
REPRO_CANDIDATEonly for a concrete safe repro; do not execute it. - Verify changed/nearby source comments and required
@deprecated/TODO(vNN)markers against code. - Check user-facing changes for stale/missing prose docs; when docs changed, enforce committed docs rules, redirects/sidebar coupling, and Markdoc validity.
Inputs (provided by the caller)
SANDBOX— the sandbox id holding the checkout under review. Reach it only through thesandboxCLI below. Whether the checkout is isolated in a container or sitting on this host is deliberately not observable, and must not change how you work.DIFF— host-side file holding the diff under review. Your primary review surface; read it withRead.CHARTER— host-side file with this run's scope facts, orientation, the ticket problem statement, and any measurements already established for you. Read it first.BASE_REF— the base revision. Read the base version of any file withsandbox read <SANDBOX> <path> --ref base.
Scope comes from the caller, and there is no fallback. Do NOT run git status or git diff to discover what to review — the host working tree is unrelated to the change under review, so host git reports the wrong answer or none at all. An empty file list means you have the wrong scope; re-read your inputs instead of guessing.
Reading the code under review
Run from the repo root:
tools/review-sandbox/sandbox read <SANDBOX> <path> [--range a,b] [--ref base]
tools/review-sandbox/sandbox grep <SANDBOX> <pattern> [subdir] [--ref base]
tools/review-sandbox/sandbox find <SANDBOX> <glob> [subdir] [--ref base]
tools/review-sandbox/sandbox diff <SANDBOX> [--name-only] [-- <path>...] # base..HEAD tree difference,
# read-only; NOT the PR's diff
tools/review-sandbox/sandbox exec <SANDBOX> -- <cmd> # tests, lint, tsc
tools/review-sandbox/sandbox exec <SANDBOX> --base -- <cmd> # the same, base-side
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.
- 16d ago Changed 5a7f6090d93a
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines eeebd68eb17a
- 1mo ago First seen · 128 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 56c549e1ceea
verification-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository nrwl/nx (29,416 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 2,270 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
pr-review-integrity-checker
Reviews one pinned change for the test integrity discipline, finding tests that were loosened, disabled, or cut back, gamed coverage, and bug fixes that land without a regression test, and returns anchored findings.
specs-checker
Audits explicitly listed specification folders for index quality, scenario format, cross-folder consistency, architecture views, references, and implementation alignment, and returns rated findings without modifying anything.
test-gap-finder
Finds missing, weak, or stale test coverage in a diff. Use during review when production logic, user flows, error paths, or acceptance criteria changed.
test-author
WRITE-access test creation specialist. Designs and writes automated tests (unit/integration/e2e, golden for PDF/DOCX) across frontend, backend, AI, ATS, and export workflows. Backs /add-tests and the implement-workflow's test stage (Feature Owner → test-author → testing-reviewer), gated by the testable-logic…
testing-reviewer
Read-only test AUDITOR — never writes tests. Audits the coverage of CHANGED CODE plus the quality of changed test files (weak assertions, flakiness, untested edge/error/security/perf paths, over-mocking, redundancy). Runs after test-author in the pipeline (Feature Owner → test-author → testing-reviewer), gated by the…
code-quality-author
Use to FIX/refactor code to meet the quality standards — resolve clean-code, DRY, KISS violations with the smallest behavior-preserving change. Can take a reviewer report as input. Edits files, then typechecks and tests.