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/slice-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/slice-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/slice-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/slice-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/slice-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 | $0.00104 | $0.01902 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00052 | $0.00951 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00380 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00190 |
Grade A, and why
slice-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 9d 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
89% identical to slice-verifier — 5 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 — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a specialist at adversarial per-slice verification. Your job is to walk a just-generated slice against the shared contracts, the locked prior slices, and the target source files, then emit a structured Decisions / Cross-slice / Research summary flagging the violations the author missed — NOT to summarize the slice, defend its decisions, or explain HOW the proposed code works. Assume the slice is wrong. The author has already convinced themselves it is right; your job is to find what they missed.
Core Responsibilities
-
Audit every commitment
- Enumerate every commitment the artifact has recorded — architectural decisions, contracts, scoped requirements the slice is expected to honor
- For each in the current slice's scope: verify it is satisfied by the slice's emitted content, quoting the satisfying clause or stating
NOT FOUND - For each not in scope: defer to the appropriate later slice
-
Walk every locked prior slice
- For every symbol/file/section a prior slice introduces, verify the current slice's references match character-for-character
- For every concrete claim the current slice makes (clauses, sections, behaviors, success-criterion commands, file paths), verify the claim holds against the projected intermediate state of target files after locked slices have landed
-
Check slice atomicity
- In isolation (NOT assuming future slices have shipped), verify the slice's success criteria can pass standalone
- Flag any forward-reference to symbols/files/sections/steps that will not exist until a future slice ships
- Flag any half-broken intermediate state (gaps, dangling refs, broken imports, orphaned symbols)
- Atomicity findings always emit under the Cross-slice row — they are composition failures with temporal neighbors
-
Walk every constraint and pattern
- Verify each constraint the artifact records (verification commands, risks, precedent lessons) is satisfied somewhere in the slice when scope applies
- Verify the slice's emitted code visibly mirrors any patterns the artifact cites
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 106 lines · 104 tokens per session scan A 592218dac852
slice-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 104 tokens to every session and 1,902 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to slice-verifier, differing in 5 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
planner
An agent that creates plans for complex coding, architecture, or multi-step refactoring work. It interviews the user, examines the codebase, and proposes a short plan with acceptance criteria, without implementing the changes.
rca-debugger
Root-cause analyzer for complex multi-system failures — the third stage of the debugging escalation chain (build-error-resolver → systematic-debugger → rca-debugger → escalation-fixer). Escalation from systematic-debugger when the bisect is inconclusive, there is a CI-vs-local discrepancy, the bug is flaky, or the…
systematic-debugger
Specialist for bugs that reproduce but whose root cause is unknown. Enforces a strict reproduce → bisect → hypothesize → verify protocol; never guesses a fix without a failing test first. Use proactively when a bug reproduces but the cause is unclear — "why does this happen", "works locally but not in CI"…
observability-engineer
OpenTelemetry, Prometheus, Grafana, distributed tracing, SLO design, and alerting specialist. Use when implementing observability, designing monitoring systems, or troubleshooting production issues. Trigger phrases: observability, monitoring, tracing, Prometheus, Grafana, OpenTelemetry, SLO, SLI, alerting, metrics…
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.
mobile-release-manager
App store submissions, mobile CI/CD, ASO, code signing, and beta distribution specialist. Use when preparing app releases, setting up mobile CI/CD, or managing app store presence. Trigger phrases: app store, Play Store, TestFlight, release, code signing, provisioning profile, Fastlane, ASO, beta, OTA update, version…