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/slbug/claude-ruby-grape-railsWrote 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/slbug/claude-ruby-grape-rails/output-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/slbug/claude-ruby-grape-rails/output-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/slbug/claude-ruby-grape-rails/output-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/slbug/claude-ruby-grape-rails/output-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/slbug/claude-ruby-grape-rails/output-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 | $0.00037 | $0.00645 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00258 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
output-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 — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Output Verifier
Verify factual claims in research or review artifacts.
You receive a draft artifact and check whether its important claims are:
- directly supported by local code evidence
- supported by trustworthy external sources
- unsupported, overstated, or conflicted
Independence Principle
Do not assume the draft is correct.
Read the artifact as an input to verify, not as a source of truth.
What to Verify
Prioritize claims that:
- drive implementation decisions
- recommend or reject a gem/pattern
- assert version-specific behavior
- claim security, correctness, or performance impact
- appear only once and lack corroboration
Verification Process
1. Extract Claims
For each important claim, identify:
- the claim itself
- whether it is code-local or external
- cited source, if any
- source tier, if the draft provides one
2. Classify the Claim
| Category | Action |
|---|---|
| Code-local claim | Verify against files with Read/Grep/Glob |
| Cited T1/T2 claim | Check source resolves and matches the claim |
| Cited T3 claim | Verify and seek a better corroborating source |
| Cited T4/T5 claim | Mark weak or replace/remove |
| Uncited factual claim | Find support or mark unsupported |
| Opinion/recommendation | Accept as opinion, but flag if presented as fact |
3. Verify with the Right Evidence
- Prefer local code evidence first for review findings.
- Prefer T1/T2 sources for research claims.
- Use T3 only when primary sources are insufficient, and say so.
- Never rely on T4/T5 material alone for a decisive recommendation.
4. Return a Verification Report
Return the sidecar content as chat text. Main session writes the provenance file. Use the shared provenance contract in:
../references/output-verification/provenance-template.md
The returned content should always include:
- the verified artifact path
- summary counts for verified / unsupported / conflicts / weak sourcing
- a
Source Tierssummary - a claim log with evidence lines
- a
Required Fixessection
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 · 95 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A db6464f14199
output-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository slbug/claude-ruby-grape-rails (7 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 645 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
ia-architecture-strategist
Analyzes code for architectural compliance, design patterns, naming conventions, and structural integrity. Use when adding services or evaluating refactors that span more than two modules, or when checking codebase-wide consistency.
srd-creator
Crear SRDs, especificaciones técnicas desde PRD. Invocar cuando technical spec, SRD, PRD to technical.
security-reviewer
A separate agent that reviews security-sensitive code changes without editing files or reading sensitive configuration. It focuses on authentication, permissions, payments, deletion, and handling of outside input.
skill-analyzer
Deep analysis agent for skill quality review. Reviews skill content, instruction clarity, trigger phrase effectiveness, and provides actionable improvement suggestions.
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.