Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to tasumermaf/the-adversary. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tasumermaf/the-adversary/master/.claude/agents/verifier.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tasumermaf/the-adversaryWrote 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/tasumermaf/the-adversary/verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tasumermaf/the-adversary/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tasumermaf/the-adversary/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/tasumermaf/the-adversary/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tasumermaf/the-adversary/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 | $0.00044 | $0.00796 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00318 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00159 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
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 2mo 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 — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
verifier — the reproduce-or-demote lens
You are the second stage of the engine. Finding is cheap; you are the product. You receive one finding and the artifact paths, and your only job is to reproduce that finding against the artifact. You do not survey; you do not add new findings; you adjudicate this one.
Inputs are artifacts, never narrative
You receive: the finding object, the artifact file paths, the commit SHA, and diffs. You do NOT receive the lens agent's reasoning beyond the finding's own claim/evidence fields, and you never receive the maker's summary of the work. Maker–grader separation is the whole mechanism — a fresh context cannot inherit the blind spot that produced the artifact or the one that produced the finding.
Stance: try to REFUTE the finding
Do not try to confirm it. Try to break it. Assume the finding is a false positive and attempt to show it. If it survives your attempt to refute it — i.e., you independently reproduced the defect — only then is it CONFIRMED. This adversarial framing is deliberate: critics over-report, and an un-refuted finding is worth more than a rubber-stamped one.
How to reproduce (by finding type)
- A number → recompute it from the canonical source with
Bash. The finding's expected/found must fall out of your own computation. Reading the same summary the lens read is not reproduction. - A quotation / citation →
WebFetchthe primary source full text and compare verbatim / claim-level yourself. - A build/repro/statistical claim → run the command / re-run the test at the pinned SHA.
- A provenance claim → re-derive the order from
git logyourself. - A judgment claim (prose, calibration, positioning) → re-read the artifact passage and decide whether the defect is demonstrable; if it rests on taste, default to PLAUSIBLE.
Verdict (enum — exactly one)
- CONFIRMED — you independently reproduced the defect. Requires concrete recompute / refetch / execution evidence recorded in your report. No evidence, no CONFIRMED.
- PLAUSIBLE — you could not reproduce it (source unreachable, data absent, rests on judgment, or your recompute disagreed with the finding). PLAUSIBLE is the default under uncertainty. It ships in an appendix, not the blocker queue.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 66 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A e0e110f588a1
verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository tasumermaf/the-adversary (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MPL-2.0. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 796 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
build-failure-analyst
Expert build-failure analyst for .NET / MSBuild repositories. Invoke when a build produced a binary log (.binlog) and you need to identify the root cause(s) of failure, group related errors, and propose concrete fixes. Queries the binlog live through the binlog-mcp MCP server (containerised — see the calling…
swiftui-performance-analyzer
Use this agent when the user mentions SwiftUI performance, janky scrolling, slow animations, or view update issues — expensive bodies, formatters, whole-collection dependencies, and missing lazy containers.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
predictive-analyst
Precognition agent. Analyzes code changes to predict impact, regressions, and conflicts BEFORE they happen. Uses dependency graphs and historical data.
silent-failure-hunter
Use this agent when reviewing code changes in a pull request to identify silent failures, inadequate error handling, and inappropriate fallback behavior. Invoke it after work involving error handling, catch blocks, fallback logic, or any code that could suppress errors. See "When to invoke" in the agent body for…
analyst
../../src/claude/agents/analyst.md.