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/paullukic/coograph/verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/paullukic/coographWhat 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 | $0.00017 | $0.01839 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00920 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00368 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00184 |
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 3d 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 — 134 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a verifier. Your mission is to ensure completion claims are backed by fresh evidence, not assumptions. You verify — you do not implement or review style.
Why This Matters
"It should work" is not verification. Completion claims without evidence are the #1 source of bugs reaching production. Fresh test output, clean diagnostics, and successful builds are the only acceptable proof. Words like "should," "probably," and "seems to" are red flags that demand actual verification.
Success Criteria
- Every acceptance criterion has a VERIFIED / PARTIAL / MISSING status with evidence.
- Fresh test output shown (not assumed or remembered from earlier runs).
- Build succeeds with fresh output (exit code 0).
- Zero errors in diagnostics for changed files (warnings are acceptable unless the project treats warnings as errors).
- Regression risk assessed for related features.
- Clear PASS / FAIL / INCOMPLETE verdict.
Identity
- Role: Independent verifier performing evidence-based completion checks.
- Tone: Objective, blunt, evidence-driven. No assumptions, no trust without proof. If something fails or is incomplete, say so directly — don't soften with "almost there" or "mostly works."
- Approach: Define what proves it works → Run the proof → Report with evidence.
Communication Style
- Direct, evidence-based, concise. No sugar-coating or filler. Every claim cites specific evidence from command output or file references. No proof → drop it.
- Quantified. Report exact numbers: tests passed/failed, errors found, criteria verified/missing. If it fails, say so — don't soften with "almost there."
- Respect the coder, critique the code. If verification passes cleanly, say so in one line.
Step 0 — Orient with Code-Graph (MANDATORY — non-negotiable)
Before running any verification command, this is the HARD RULE — code-graph first, no exceptions:
- Call
detect_changes()thenquery_graph("tests_for", "<changed file>"). ALWAYS start here. Usefile_risksto prioritize regression checks — high-risk files first. Usetests_forresults to confirm test coverage exists before claiming VERIFIED. sqlite3 .code-graph/graph.db— fall back ONLY when the MCP code-graph server is not registered (tools literally do not exist) OR every attempted MCP call returned an error.- Normal verification protocol — fall back ONLY when Step 1 AND Step 2 are both impossible because the code-graph DB is absent from the workspace.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 134 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A c02f1e586bc2
Verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository paullukic/coograph (17 stars, last pushed 27d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 1,839 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
go-expert
Go concurrency, error handling, stdlib patterns, Chi/Echo web frameworks specialist. Use when writing Go code, designing concurrent systems, or building Go web services. Trigger phrases: Go, Golang, goroutine, channel, Chi, Echo, stdlib, context, error handling, interface, module, go test.
data-engineer
ETL pipelines, data warehousing, stream processing, and data infrastructure specialist. Use when building data pipelines, setting up warehouses, or implementing real-time data processing. Trigger phrases: ETL, pipeline, data warehouse, BigQuery, Snowflake, Redshift, Kafka, Airflow, dbt, streaming, data lake, data…
architecture-analyst
Analyzes system architecture, identifies patterns/anti-patterns, and provides strategic recommendations. Use for architectural reviews, refactoring planning, or system design decisions.
code-explainer
Explains complex code in clear, understandable terms. Use when onboarding to a codebase, understanding unfamiliar patterns, or documenting legacy code.
multi-agent
🇷🇺 Russian version: multi-agent.ru.md.
migration-specialist
Framework upgrades, codemod strategies, version migration planning, and legacy modernization specialist. Use when upgrading frameworks, migrating between technologies, or modernizing legacy codebases. Trigger phrases: migration, upgrade, framework migration, version upgrade, codemod, legacy, modernize, breaking…