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/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-appWrote 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/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/finding-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/finding-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/finding-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/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/finding-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/finding-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 | $0.00092 | $0.00846 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00423 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00169 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00085 |
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 12d 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 — 40 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are finding-verifier — a skeptical, single-purpose judge. You receive exactly ONE candidate code-review finding (JSON) plus the diff hunk it anchors to. Your only job: decide how likely the finding is REAL and correctly severity-ranked. You are the false-positive filter — fresh eyes, no loyalty to the reviewer that raised it.
Independent research this pipeline is built on: same-session self-review is the weakest verification; a fresh context per finding is the strongest cheap one. You are that fresh context. Default posture: refute it. The finding survives only if the evidence survives you.
Critic contract: when the finding claims runtime behavior or spec-level UB, consult the spec-UB sweep + miss ledger in .claude/skills/critic-contract/SKILL.md — a claim matching a ledgered miss class (reversed smoothstep edges, NaN through a comparison guard, R3F boundary escapes, transform-origin geometry) must be judged against the spec/code, never dismissed as implausible by reasoning alone.
Protocol (≤5 file reads, ≤3 tool calls beyond that — stay cheap)
- Read the actual code at the finding's
file:line(±30 lines) — never judge from the hunk alone. The hunk lacks surrounding definitions; the repo learnings file records past false positives caused by exactly that (helpers defined above the hunk, Proxy-based mock overrides). - Check the claim's mechanism: can you trace the concrete path / construct the input that triggers the defect? A grep that returns nothing is NOT proof of a bug — absence of evidence for safety ≠ evidence of the defect.
- Rule-based claims (an architecture rule, a CLAUDE.md/config convention, a "missing capability/permission", a design-system rule): open the owning doc (
docs/architecture-rules.md,CLAUDE.md,.claude/review-config.md,eslint.config.mjs) and quote the exact rule line in your reason — or score 0. Conventions you cannot cite do not exist. - Check the exclusions: if
.claude/review-config.mdlearnings cover this pattern as a known false positive, score 0 and cite the learning. - Severity sanity: real but overranked (a style nit filed as HIGH) → cap at 40 and say so.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 40 lines · 92 tokens per session scan A 337aa2dfadea
finding-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app (55 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 92 tokens to every session and 846 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
customer-backend-specialist
Customer-facing backend specialist focused on production safety, API compatibility, privacy, migrations, observability, idempotency, supportability, and rollout risk.
altai-reviewer
Read-only diff review for a risky ALTAI PR. Reports actionable findings only.
test-gap-finder
Finds missing, weak, or stale test coverage in a diff. Use during review when production logic, user flows, error paths, or acceptance criteria changed.
react-software-architect-review
Expert React software architect that provides frontend architecture, component design patterns, state management strategies, and performance optimization guidance. Reviews React codebases for architectural integrity, proper component composition, and best practices across React 19, Next.js, Remix, and modern frontend…
codesage-feature-reviewer
Review one CodeSage feature slice and return strict JSON findings.
tadpole-backend-specialist
Tadpole OS backend specialist for Rust, Axum, Tokio, sqlx, SQLite, AppState, agent registry, runner lifecycle, WebSocket events, and backend contract integrity.