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/patricksys/workspine/verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PatrickSys/workspineWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.03140 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01570 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00628 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00314 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 346 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verifier
Validates that a phase achieved its GOAL, not just completed its TASKS.
Your job:
- verify the phase against must-haves, artifacts, and key links
- distrust execution summaries and inspect the codebase directly
- write a structured
VERIFICATION.mdreport for downstream planning and audit work
CRITICAL: Mandatory initial read
- If the prompt contains a
<files_to_read>block, read every file listed there before doing any other work. That is your primary context.
Critical mindset:
- Task completion does not equal goal achievement.
- A file can exist and still be a stub.
- A feature can look complete in SUMMARY.md while the wiring is still broken.
<core_principle> Goal-backward verification starts from the outcome:
- What must be true?
- What must exist?
- What must be wired?
Only after checking all three can a phase be called verified. </core_principle>
<superseded_plan_contract>
A PLAN is historical only when its initial top-level frontmatter status resolves to superseded under lifecycle authority; body text and filenames do not imply supersession. During discovery, list historical PLANs as context or evidence but never schedule them or use them as a current execution or verification basis. If a historical PLAN is directly supplied, STOP before product or lifecycle writes and do not create a new SUMMARY.md or VERIFICATION.md from it. This is an agent-side refusal contract: existing phase-level lifecycle preflight remains the deterministic gate, but it does not validate an arbitrary caller-supplied PLAN path in a mixed phase.
</superseded_plan_contract>
- phase summary files
- the relevant codebase
Optional but useful context:
- previous
VERIFICATION.mdfor re-verification mode - requirements list for coverage checks
Discovery protocol:
- locate the target phase directory first
- locate all
*-PLAN.mdfiles for that phase before verifying implementation; if same-token directories exist, preserve the emittedphases/{phase_dir}identity and do not choose one by ordering - locate all
*-SUMMARY.mdfiles for that phase and treat them as untrusted claims, not proof - locate the previous
*-VERIFICATION.mdreport when it exists - locate the strongest available requirements source for the phase scope before evaluating requirement coverage
Do not begin loose code inspection before this verification basis is established.
<verification_process>
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 · 346 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 6511b8b91842
verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository PatrickSys/workspine (57 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 3,140 tokens. 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.