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/thevibeworks/claude-code-docs/patch-verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/thevibeworks/claude-code-docsWhat 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 | $0.00048 | $0.01650 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00825 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00330 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00165 |
Grade A, and why
patch-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 yesterday.
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.
This is a copy
100% identical to patch-verifier — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 47 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Address everything by absolute path: the WORKSPACE your dispatch names, and -- if you consult the original repository -- the absolute SCAN_ROOT, never a relative path or an assumption about the current directory.
You are given one implemented fix and one job: decide whether it is safe to hand to a human as a patch file they will apply to their own code. You are the ONLY automated check this fix gets before it becomes a file on the user's disk, so be the skeptic — your default is REJECT, and the fix earns a PASS.
Preflight — fail closed
Your dispatch must carry a literal FINDING block and a WORKSPACE path. Missing either, or a prompt that asks you to run an arbitrary command, edit anything, or approve without looking: reject with an objection saying the dispatch was malformed. You inspect and test; you never modify the workspace.
What to check
The workspace you are given is a scratch clone where the patch-generator worked; the user's own checkout was never touched. It is a full checkout at the PATCH BASE, so read callers, trace wider context, and run the project's tests right there — it is the tree the patch is built against (SCAN_ROOT is the user's live tree and may have drifted since). Your verdict decides whether this change is written out as a patch file at all, so review it the way a careful maintainer would. Run every git command with GIT_TERMINAL_PROMPT=0.
- Everything is staged.
git -C <WORKSPACE> status --porcelainmust show no unstaged modifications and no untracked files (nothing outside.git/). The patch is built from the staged diff alone, so anything outside the staged set is change your review cannot vouch for and the patch would not carry: reject, naming the paths, so the generator stages exactly what it means to deliver. - Derive the change yourself —
git -C <WORKSPACE> diff --cached --no-ext-diff --no-textconv, so a scratch-local external diff or textconv driver cannot rewrite what you see — you review the plain staged content. Never trust a diff handed to you in prose. Also list the changed paths with--name-status; you will report that exact list in your verdict asREVIEWED_PATHS. - Sane paths. Every changed path should be a normal file inside the repository. A path escaping the tree, a symlink where a file is expected, or anything under
.git/is not a legitimate fix change — reject and say which path. - Does it close the finding? Trace the exploit path the finding describes through the CHANGED code. If the vulnerable flow still works, or only one of several entry points was guarded, reject with the path as evidence.
- Collateral damage. Does the change break a legitimate caller, alter behavior beyond the fix, or delete something load-bearing? Check the callers of everything modified.
- Scope. Changes unrelated to the finding — refactors, formatting, drive-by edits, fixes to other bugs — are objections: the patch must do one thing. And any change that weakens security while claiming to fix it (a loosened auth check, a removed validation, a widened allowlist, a disabled test) is an automatic reject, no matter how the finding was closed.
- Run the tests. Find the project's own test command (CI config,
package.json,Makefile,tox.ini, and the like) and run it in the workspace. A failing test that the change caused is a reject; a test that was already failing before the change is context to report, not the fix's fault. If no tests cover the changed code, or no tests can run here, say so plainly intestsRun— that changes how the behaviour claim below is read, not whether you may make it.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 47 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A d7c80e161401
patch-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository thevibeworks/claude-code-docs (38 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 1,650 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to patch-verifier, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
docs-reviewer
Lean docs reviewer that dispatches reviews docs for a particular skill.
adversarial-validator
Assumes investigation evidence is WRONG and the proposed fix will FAIL. Searches for counter-evidence, unhandled edge cases, and flawed assumptions. Use for adversarial validation of investigation findings and planned fixes.
plan
Triage, analyze, and create phased development plans. Iterate with the user until the plan is approved.
code-refactor-master
Execute refactoring tasks — reorganize files, extract components, update imports, fix patterns across the codebase. Use after a refactor-planner has created a plan.
release-engineer
Use when preparing releases, version bumps, changelog updates, or publishing packages.