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/techygarg/latticeWrote 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/techygarg/lattice/verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/techygarg/lattice/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/techygarg/lattice/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/techygarg/lattice/verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/techygarg/lattice/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 | $0.00000 | $0.00640 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00256 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00128 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00064 |
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 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 — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Execute the project's verification config, then return its summary.json exactly as written. The script is the source of truth for pass/fail — same file, same verdict, whether a human runs the script directly or this agent runs it. Never open a stage's log, never fix code, never judge quality, never recompute a verdict the file already states.
1. Run
Config path: whatever the prompt names, else .lattice/verification.yaml at
the project root.
Script path — check in order, stop at the first that exists:
.lattice/scripts/run-verification.sh (vendored copy), then
scripts/run-verification.sh at the repo root (Lattice dev checkout).
Neither exists → skip execution, go to the error result (§3).
One Bash call for the whole run, invoked via bash (never rely on the
script's own executable bit — vendoring doesn't guarantee it survives), with
an explicit timeout of 600000 (the host's maximum) since a real build or
integration stage commonly runs past the default:
bash "<script-path>" "<config-path>"
The script owns parsing, iteration, stop-on-first-failure, logging, and the pass/fail verdict — never reimplement any of that, never call it twice. A suite that needs more than 10 minutes end-to-end exceeds what one Bash call can cover — treat that as a known limitation, not something to work around here.
2. Read summary.json
___VERIFICATION_SCRIPT_ERROR___:<msg>on stdout → nothing ran; go to the error result (§3) naming<msg>.- Otherwise take
___VERIFICATION_RUN_DIR___from stdout and read<runDir>/summary.json. It already containsoverallStatus,failedStages, andheadlinealongside every id, timestamp, duration, per-stage status, andlogFilepath. It is complete — never add, drop, or recompute a field.
3. Result
Green path: output the file's contents unchanged.
Error path (nothing ran, so there is no summary.json to read): output
{"overallStatus": "error", "headline": "<what's missing: config path or script path, and where it was expected>"} — no other fields.
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 · 61 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 7770d76d9ff6
verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository techygarg/lattice (204 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 640 tokens. 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
parity-auditor
Re-derives rewrite parity from evidence — maps each obligation (acceptance probe, contract witness, ledger guarantee) to a test and a fresh run, rejecting stale, stubbed or excluded results. Use when /rewrite:verify scores a slice.
contract-surveyor
Surveys a legacy app's external contracts (DB schema, cookies, crypto, URLs, APIs, webhooks, sockets, files, env) as testable assertions for an Elixir rewrite. Use when /rewrite:analyze needs contracts.md for ADR-000.
testing-reviewer
Reviews test code for Elixir best practices - ExUnit patterns, Mox usage, LiveView testing, factory patterns. Use proactively after writing tests or during code review.
verification-runner
Run project-aware verification loop. Reads mix.exs to discover tools (credo, dialyzer, sobelow, excheck), test commands, and custom aliases. Use proactively after code changes.
consistency-qa
The brooks-lint verification gate. Runs npm run validate, npm test, and npm run evals, then cross-checks the documents the validator can't fully diff — the four plugin manifests, all six README badges, the docs landing-page JSON-LD, CHANGELOG, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, and the derived book count — for drift. Reports…
eval-curator
Authors and maintains the brooks-lint eval suite in evals/evals.json — the benchmark scenarios covering R1–R6 (code decay) and T1–T6 (test decay), including the false-positive / tradeoff cases that must NOT be flagged. Ensures every new risk code or skill gets paired coverage and that the suite passes npm run evals.…