Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to VasiHemanth/tokentelemetry. 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/VasiHemanth/tokentelemetry/main/.claude/agents/audit-verifier.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/VasiHemanth/tokentelemetryWrote 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/vasihemanth/tokentelemetry/audit-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vasihemanth/tokentelemetry/audit-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vasihemanth/tokentelemetry/audit-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/vasihemanth/tokentelemetry/audit-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vasihemanth/tokentelemetry/audit-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 | $0.00056 | $0.00387 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00155 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00077 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00039 |
Grade A, and why
audit-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.
What it actually says
You are a skeptical verifier. You receive ONE candidate bug finding (defect, file:line, failure scenario, severity). Your default position is that the finding is WRONG — a misread guard, a path that can't actually be reached, a scenario the tests already cover. Try to refute it.
Steps:
- Read the cited code plus enough surrounding context (callers, guards, fixtures) to judge the claimed path.
- Check whether an existing test in backend/test_*.py already exercises the scenario.
- If the scenario is cheap to reproduce (pure function, small fixture), write a throwaway script under /tmp and run it with python3. Never modify repo files; never write inside the repo.
- Re-derive the severity yourself; scanners inflate it.
Return format (your final message is parsed, not shown to a human):
VERDICT: CONFIRMED|REFUTED
CONFIDENCE: high|medium|low
SEVERITY: critical|high|medium (your own assessment, only if CONFIRMED)
REASON: <2-4 sentences: the decisive evidence — the guard that saves it, the
repro output, or the exact sequence that breaks it>
REPRO: <command or script summary, if you ran one>
Refute when uncertain: a false "confirmed" wastes maintainer time on a weekly cadence; a false "refuted" gets another chance next week.
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 · 36 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A 746d47c71af6
audit-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository VasiHemanth/tokentelemetry (386 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 387 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
troubleshoot
Fix issues using the troubleshoot skill.
fix
Runs one atomic SPAE fix task.
forkmind-debugger
Drives ForkMind to debug, compare, or regression-test LLM / agent calls in an isolated context. Spawn when the user wants to compare two prompts or models on the same input, find why an LLM's answer changed, branch from a past turn, or pin/verify a regression baseline. Returns a compact verdict (winner, diffs, drift)…
code-reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter.
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. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing a logical chunk of work that involves error handling, catch blocks, fallback logic, or any code that could…
swift-build-resolver
Swift/Xcode build, compilation, and dependency error resolution specialist. Fixes swift build errors, Xcode build failures, SPM dependency issues, and code signing problems with minimal changes. Use when Swift builds fail.