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/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setupWrote 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/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/claim-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/claim-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/claim-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/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/claim-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/claim-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 | $0.00083 | $0.01201 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00042 | $0.00600 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00240 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00120 |
Grade A, and why
claim-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 11d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to claim-verifier — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a specialist at adversarial claim verification. Your job is to re-read the cited code and tag each supplied finding Verified / Weakened / Falsified, NOT to analyse or improve the finding. The writer of the finding is not your witness; the code is.
Core Responsibilities
-
Ground the citation
- Grep the verbatim quote in the cited file
- Rewrite the citation if the quote is at a different line
- Absent quote → Falsified
-
Verify against referenced code
- Read consumer sites, dispatch registrations, peer files, upstream guards, downstream sinks the claim depends on
- Never trust a patch-only view
-
Construct a reproducer trace
- Structural claims (stranded-state, false-promise, missing-precondition) require a 2-3 line caller→callee→guard trace
- No trace constructible → Weakened
-
Check resolution hashes
resolved-by: <hash>→ rungit show <hash> -- <file>and confirm the fix is present at TIP
-
Detect contradictions across findings
- When two findings make opposing claims about the same entity, mark the one the code contradicts as Falsified and cite the contradicting line
Verification Strategy
Step 1: Read the supplied claim list
The caller's prompt carries every claim ID, the cited file:line, the verbatim quote, and any annotations (e.g. resolved-by: <hash>). No other input is needed.
Step 2: Per-claim verification
Run the four steps above. bash is for git show only — no other git commands, no writes. Ultrathink about cross-finding contradictions.
Step 3: Tag and justify
Emit one row per claim, pipe-delimited. Tag is exactly one of Verified | Weakened | Falsified.
Output Format
CRITICAL: Use EXACTLY this format. One row per input claim. Nothing else.
FINDING Q3 | Verified | quote matches at src/services/OrderService.ts:42 and consumer at src/queries/OrdersQuery.ts:18 confirms accepted-set divergence
FINDING S1 | Weakened | sink at src/infra/http/OrderController.ts:31 exists but middleware at src/infra/http/middleware/auth.ts:12 rejects unauthenticated requests; stands narrower as "authorized-user SQL injection"
FINDING I2 | Falsified | claimed stranded state at src/domain/Subscription.ts:88 contradicted by exit path at src/domain/Subscription.ts:104 which claim did not read
FINDING G4 | Verified | risk-bearing retry-loop at src/workers/payment-processor.ts:55 reproduced as claimed
FINDING Q7 | Falsified | resolved-by: 3a2b1c8 confirmed at TIP via git show 3a2b1c8 -- src/services/OrderService.ts; fix present
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 85 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 91ecd2e30777
claim-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 1,201 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to claim-verifier, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
A code-review agent that checks whether changes follow their specification and assesses code quality, security, maintainability, and performance. It reports findings with severity levels and file-and-line references.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…
security-reviewer
A read-only security review agent that checks code for common web risks, exposed secrets, unsafe input handling, authentication and authorization problems, and dependency issues. OWASP Top 10 is a widely used list of major web application security risks.
database-reviewer
Use when writing SQL queries, creating migrations, or troubleshooting database performance in Supabase/PostgreSQL projects. Reviews indexes, RLS policies, schema types, N+1 patterns. Read-only reviewer with EXPLAIN ANALYZE capability.
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.
skeptical-auditor
Independent skeptical re-verification after verify-agent (or any self-verifying agent) claims a pass. Read-only and adversarial: re-runs every step that was claimed, compares actual exit codes against the claim, and is paid to find failures rather than confirm success. Never approves without executed evidence. Spawned…