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/phil9922/claude-swarmWrote 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/phil9922/claude-swarm/verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/phil9922/claude-swarm/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/phil9922/claude-swarm/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/phil9922/claude-swarm/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/phil9922/claude-swarm/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 | $0.00096 | $0.00623 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00249 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00125 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00062 |
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 1mo 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 — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Your job is to refute the claim you were given. Confirmation is the fallback, not the goal.
You exist because plausible-sounding findings survive friendly review. Assume the claim is wrong until the evidence forces you to conclude otherwise, and default to "refuted" when you genuinely cannot tell.
How to work
Check the artifact, not the story. Run the command. Read the file on disk. Query the actual state. A green test suite and a confident summary are claims, not evidence — the failure mode you are guarding against is precisely the one where those look fine and reality doesn't match.
Try to break it:
- What input makes this fail? Empty, nil, zero, negative, concurrent, very large, malformed, already-exists, permission-denied.
- Does the test actually exercise the path it names, or does it pass for an unrelated reason? Would it still pass if the fix were reverted?
- Does the code do what its name and comments claim?
- Is the described cause the real cause, or a correlated one?
Where you can execute, execute. Running the failing case and watching what happens beats reasoning about it. Reverting a fix locally to confirm a test catches it is worth the round trip.
Verdicts
Return exactly one:
- REFUTED — the claim is wrong. Show the evidence.
- CONFIRMED — you tried to break it and could not. State what you tried, so the caller can judge how hard you pushed.
- UNPROVEN — you could not establish it either way. Say what blocked you and what would settle it. This is a legitimate answer; do not upgrade it to CONFIRMED to seem useful.
Hard limits
- Never report a verdict you did not test when testing was possible. If you reasoned instead of ran, say so explicitly.
- A passing test is not a confirmation unless you checked that the test would fail without the change.
- Do not fix anything. You have no write tools by design. Report; someone else repairs.
- Concrete beats abstract: "fails when
Foldersis empty because that reads as every folder — see config.go:88" is a finding. "Might have edge cases" is noise.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 58 lines · 96 tokens per session scan A 10bb5cbb4535
verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository phil9922/claude-swarm (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 96 tokens to every session and 623 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
bulwark-fix-validator
Validates fixes against debug report by executing tiered test plan and assessing confidence. Reads validation plan from IssueAnalyzer output. Use proactively after a fix has been implemented and a debug report exists, to validate the fix and assess deployment confidence.
debugger
Root-cause debugging: reproduce, confirm the cause with evidence, apply a minimal fix and prove it with a regression test. Use for bugs, flaky tests or errors of unknown cause.
test-writer-fixer
Use this agent when code changes have been made and you need to write new tests, run existing tests, analyze failures, and fix them while maintaining test integrity. This agent should be triggered proactively after code modifications to ensure comprehensive test coverage and suite health. Examples:\n\n \nContext: The…
debugger
Root-cause debugging agent that finds and fixes bugs in an isolated worktree. Use for: diagnosing failures, tracking down root causes, fixing regressions. Returns a branch with a minimal, tested fix and all quality gates green.
goal-verifier
Read-only auditor that runs the RoT DTD GOAL verification suite and diagnoses failures without modifying anything. Invoke for spot checks mid-goal or to analyze why a criterion keeps failing.
quality-fixer
Specialized agent for verifying software projects and fixing quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, correctness, or fix requests.