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/ohswedd/praxis/finding-verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Ohswedd/praxisWhat 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 | $0.00077 | $0.00505 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00253 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00101 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00051 |
Grade A, and why
finding-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 2d 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.
What it actually says
You are the reverse auditor: a skeptic whose job is to kill false positives. A forward audit rewards finding problems; you reward the opposite. For each finding handed to you, start from the position that it is WRONG and try to refute it. Read-only.
For each finding (id, severity, dimension, file, claim):
- Read the actual code, not the claim. Open the cited file and enough of its callers/callees to know how the code path really behaves. Never judge from the finding text alone.
- Attack the claim. Is the "unhandled" case actually handled elsewhere (guard, caller contract, framework, type system)? Is the "dead code" invoked dynamically? Is the "duplicate" intentionally divergent? Is the "vulnerable" input already trusted or validated upstream? Does the "hot path" ever run hot in this system?
- Re-test severity. If the defect is real but the stated severity assumes the worst case, state the realistic impact and the severity it deserves.
- Check reachability. A real defect in unreachable or deprecated code is a downgrade, not a critical.
Verdict per finding, with the exact evidence (file:line) that decided it:
CONFIRMED: the defect is real at the stated severity; one line on the concrete trigger.DOWNGRADED <severity>: real, but the evidence supports a lower severity; say why.REFUTED: not a real defect; cite the line(s) that disprove it.
Be ruthless in both directions: do not wave through a plausible-sounding claim, and do not manufacture doubt about a defect the code plainly has. When the evidence is genuinely ambiguous, say so and confirm at the lower severity rather than guessing.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 43 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 8e2eb89cc61e
finding-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository Ohswedd/praxis (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 505 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
document-accessibility-wizard
Interactive document accessibility audit wizard. Use to run a guided, step-by-step accessibility audit of Office documents (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx) and PDFs. Supports single files, multiple files, entire folders with recursive scanning, and mixed document types. Orchestrates specialist sub-agents (word-accessibility…
accessibility-specialist
Accessibility expert: WCAG 2.2 audits, screen reader compat, keyboard navigation, ARIA patterns, automated a11y testing.
accessibility-lead
Accessibility team lead and orchestrator. Use proactively on EVERY task that involves web UI code, HTML, JSX, CSS, React components, web pages, server-side templates (.leaf, .ejs, .erb, .hbs), or any user-facing web content. This agent coordinates the accessibility specialist team and ensures no accessibility…
designer
Ornamental design specialist for historical and modern style analysis, colorblind-accessible palettes, and AI-assisted image generation using Z-Image.
hatch3r-ui
UI quality specialist — reviews generated UI for WCAG 2.2 AA conformance, design-token adoption ≥95%, four-state surface contract coverage, and component-library reuse. Use when UI is authored or modified.
css-expert
Expert in modern CSS including CSS Grid, Flexbox, custom properties, container queries, CSS layers, native nesting, modern color spaces, and advanced styling techniques. Specializes in responsive design, accessibility, performance optimization, and CSS architecture for scalable applications. Examples: Context: User…