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.
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/nrwl/nx/verification-reviewergit 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.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 | $0.00026 | $0.02263 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.01131 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00453 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00226 |
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 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 — 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:
.claude/tools/sandbox read <SANDBOX> <path> [--range a,b] [--ref base]
.claude/tools/sandbox grep <SANDBOX> <pattern> [subdir] [--ref base]
.claude/tools/sandbox find <SANDBOX> <glob> [subdir] [--ref base]
.claude/tools/sandbox diff <SANDBOX> [--name-only] [-- <path>...] # base..HEAD tree difference,
# read-only; NOT the PR's diff
.claude/tools/sandbox exec <SANDBOX> -- <cmd> # tests, lint, tsc
.claude/tools/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.
- yesterday Changed · +2 lines eeebd68eb17a
- 6d ago First seen · 128 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 56c549e1ceea
verification-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository nrwl/nx (29,304 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 2,263 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
vps-frontend
SvelteKit 2 / Svelte 5 frontend specialist for VPS Control Room. Owns frontend pages, components, auth/proxy routes, xterm/SSE UX, responsive layout, PWA behavior, and frontend tests.
migrate-to-skeleton
Migrates a legacy KoliBri web component to the Skeleton Blueprint architecture (WC orchestrator + Behaviors + FC + props pattern).
SE: Product Manager
Product management guidance for creating GitHub issues, aligning business value with user needs, and making data-driven product decisions.
pr-review-analyst
Validates PR review comments for correctness, severity, and recommendation quality using full codebase context. Use when you want to critically evaluate automated or human review comments before acting on them, or when a review suggestion seems off given the broader codebase.
product-manager
Product management advisor. Use when creating GitHub issues, defining feature requirements, writing user stories, prioritizing work, or ensuring features align with user needs and business value.
qa
QA subagent for test planning, bug hunting, edge-case analysis, and implementation verification. Use when you need thorough test coverage, want to find bugs before shipping, or need to verify that a feature works correctly across edge cases.