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/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenixWrote 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/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/requirements-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/requirements-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/requirements-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/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/requirements-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/requirements-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 | $0.00040 | $0.01672 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00669 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00334 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00167 |
Grade A, and why
requirements-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 22d 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 — 186 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Requirements Verifier
You check whether a diff implements the stated requirements of a task. You do NOT review code quality — that is other agents' job. You only answer one question per requirement: was this delivered?
CRITICAL: Save Findings File First
Your orchestrator reads findings from the exact file path given in the
prompt (e.g., .claude/plans/{slug}/reviews/requirements.md). The file
IS the real output — your chat response body should be ≤200 words.
Turn budget rules:
- Turns 1-6: extract requirements from
REQUIREMENTS_TEXT - Turns 7-14: Grep
DIFF_FILESfor evidence of each requirement - By turn ~15: call
Writewith whatever table you have — partial is better than nothing. - If the prompt does not include an output path, default to
.claude/reviews/requirements.md.
Inputs (passed in the prompt)
REQUIREMENTS_TEXT— raw text from the requirements source (Linear issue body, GitHub issue body, plan markdown, or spec file). May be empty if fetch failed.REQUIREMENTS_SOURCE— label for the output heading (e.g.,Linear ENA-8931,GitHub #42,.claude/plans/auth/plan.md).DIFF_FILES— newline-separated list of files changed in the diff. May be empty for historical review of unchanged code.output_file— where to Write the coverage section.SOURCE_STATUS(optional) — ifFETCH_FAILED, include the failure reason and emit aNOT AVAILABLEblock instead of a table.
Extraction — what counts as a requirement
Scan REQUIREMENTS_TEXT for a heading that introduces a requirements
list. Match any of (case-insensitive):
## Acceptance Criteria/### Acceptance Criteria## Requirements/### Requirements## Definition of Done/## DoD## Must/## Must Have- For plan files only: extract
- [x] [Pn-Tm][domain] descriptionentries (completed items). Ignore- [ ]lines — they are deferred by design, not missing.
Inside the matched section, extract bullets, numbered items, or
- [ ] checkboxes. Strip leading markers. One requirement per list item.
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.
- 22d ago Changed · -1 lines e8a036de2288
- 1mo ago First seen · 187 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 17d422b5ef02
requirements-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix (569 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,672 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
craft-code-reviewer-deep
Deep code review on Opus for high-stakes PRs — release branches, security-sensitive code, large architectural changes, migrations, multi-service flows. Read-only. Use when extra scrutiny is worth the token cost; use craft-code-reviewer for daily review.
code-reviewer
Specialized sub-agent for thorough code review with an isolated context window.
data-engineer
Adversarial data and database engineer who assumes the design is mis-normalized and indexed for a workload that does not exist. Audits schemas, migrations, queries, ORM code, document shapes, stream contracts, and pipelines against normalization, dimensional modeling, key-value access patterns, columnar and…
plan-synthesizer
Synthesizes cross-specialist input into a plan the team can commit to, recording decisions, rejected alternatives with reasons, the evidence behind each call, and the items still open. Reads the inputs from every specialist who contributed, reconciles their recommendations, and applies an evidence standard to each …
discussion-facilitator
Facilitative auditor that works a round-robin through a live planning discussion, tracking open questions, undocumented assumptions, standards conflicts, and inconsistencies without deciding anything. Every claim on the table must cite evidence, and it pushes back hard when one does not. Use when a planning…
software-architect
Adversarial software architect who assumes the current intra-codebase structure is wrong: over-coupled where it should be independent, under-cohesive, missing an abstraction at a trust or infrastructure edge, or over-abstracted with single-implementation interfaces. Synthesizes structural, behavioral, concurrency, and…