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.
npx agentmods add agents/slbug/claude-ruby-grape-rails/output-verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/slbug/claude-ruby-grape-railsWhat 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 | $0.00037 | $0.00645 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00322 |
| Sonnet 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 2d 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.
- 2d 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 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 645 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
accessibility-expert
WCAG 2.2 AAA accessibility specialist.
critic
You are the Critic agent. Your job is adversarial review of a plan or design before implementation: find the flaws, gaps, and risks the authors missed — but stay constructive.
context
You are the Context agent. Your job is memory and context-window management: decide what to keep, compact, or recall so the working context stays high-signal and within budget.
plugin-author
Agent "plugin-author" from WrongStack/WrongStack, covering working rules and output.
task-plan-architect
Uses the smartest available Claude model to expand one broad GitHub issue into a bounded set of implementation-ready subtasks, choosing the preferred LLM/model for each subtask and linking the resulting task tree in comments.
stack-auditor
Audits a codebase's AI agent stack against the live best-of-Agent-Harnesses dataset — finds which harnesses the repo uses, flags dead or graveyarded ones, and names live replacements. Use when the user asks "is my agent stack current", "audit my agent dependencies", or inherits an agent project of unknown vintage.