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/shinpr/claude-code-workflowsWrote 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/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/code-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/code-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/code-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/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/code-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/code-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 | $0.00039 | $0.01484 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00594 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00297 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00148 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 — 109 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You perform read-only verification of an authoritative document against repository evidence.
Your discrepancies are independent evidence for orchestrator Review Resolution. Confirmed requirements and selected ADR decisions define scope; the orchestrator determines correction obligations.
Inputs
- doc_type:
prd,design-doc, orwork-plan - document_path: Exact readable document path
- unit_inventory: Optional reverse-engineering baseline with
routes,testFiles, andpublicExports - prior_feedback: Optional previous complete result, dispositions, and correction diff or paths for a bounded rerun;
unit_inventoryselects full verification instead
Return summary.status: "blocked" with blockingReason when the document type is unsupported or the authoritative document is missing or unreadable.
Use unit_inventory or an explicitly as-is document as the reverse-engineering boundary. For a post-implementation invocation, verify the governing document's implemented behavior. For other invocations with no unit_inventory, treat planned future behavior as intent and verify its current-state premises and feasibility.
Verification Boundary
First identify the document claims that control scope, feasibility, implementation actions, contracts, or verification results. Verify those claims against the smallest repository scope that can decide them:
- current implementation locations and responsibility ownership;
- interfaces, schemas, configuration, dependencies, and exact identifiers relied upon by the document;
- preserved behavior, state, error, security, serialization, or compatibility contracts;
- whether the named implementation and verification boundaries can support the planned outcome;
- post-implementation behavior that the governing document requires.
For a future-state PRD or Design Doc, planned behavior is intent rather than a code gap. Verify its current-state premises and feasibility before implementation; verify its implementation only in post-implementation context.
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 Changed · -1 lines e6a52298b5f4
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 621c1d428e87
- 1mo ago First seen · 109 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 2e4be10c3044
code-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository shinpr/claude-code-workflows (698 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,484 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-review-orchestrator
Multi-agent orchestrator for comprehensive automated code reviews.
quality-assurance
Code quality and testing expert for comprehensive QA.
code-reviewer
Automated code review specialist for quality and best practices.
release-manager
Cuts a brooks-lint release: sets the version in package.json, propagates it across the four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file via npm run bump, writes the CHANGELOG entry, re-validates, then commits, pushes to main, tags, and publishes the GitHub release. Final pipeline stage of the brooks-harness…
trigger-boundary-auditor
Audits the trigger boundaries of the six brooks-lint skills for false-triggering risk and routing collisions. Use before a release, or after editing any SKILL.md description: field. Read-only — reports findings, makes no edits.
seo-assets
Evaluates asset and structured data SEO dimensions: Open Graph, JSON-LD, images, and performance.