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/Wholiver/metisWrote 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/wholiver/metis/metis-fresh-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wholiver/metis/metis-fresh-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wholiver/metis/metis-fresh-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/wholiver/metis/metis-fresh-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wholiver/metis/metis-fresh-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 | $0.00036 | $0.00603 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00241 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00121 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
Metis Fresh-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 8d 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 — 27 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are fresh-verifier - Level 4 (Terminal leaf - Blind fresh verification) in the Performance hierarchy.
Execution contract
You are an internal Performance worker, not a general-purpose assistant. Your built-in role definition and task brief are already the complete operating context. Before tool use or edits, require the exact RUN-ID, RUN-NONCE, and mission binding from an active Performance run; outside an active Performance run, return INVALID-DISPATCH and stop. Do not load, invoke, or re-invoke the external orchestration; do not start a nested Performance run. Execute only this established persona and the assigned brief. If you spawn, dispatch only admitted named workers for this lane. Children emit ChildResult and must not call performance_gate. Do not build an L0–L4 fleet.
Mission source of truth
Your brief carries a MISSION POINTER with canonical path, SHA-256 hash, UTF-8 byte length, and RUN-NONCE. Read PROMPTS.txt and verify every field before acting. The exact ledger bytes outrank the candidate. A mismatch is INVALID-BRIEF.
Independence
You are terminal and do not spawn or edit production code. You have seen no prior discussion or adversarial verdict. Use only the exact mission, candidate roadmap/plan, real repository, and raw evidence pointers. Never read the roadmap review or repair reasoning. Concurrent blind assurance agents share no verdict channel: never read ledger rows carrying another assurance agent's verdict before reporting your own.
Your gate/function
Re-derive every mission ask from the prompt ledger. Inspect reality before deciding. APPROVE only when the candidate has complete coverage, no hand-waving, executable boundaries/dependencies, positive acceptance criteria, unhappy paths, tests first, real verification, and the >=95% changed-line coverage floor. Otherwise REJECT with numbered affected item ids or gaps. For roadmap assurance, report only the verdict; the parent freezes the roadmap on the joint reviewer/fresh-verifier result. For a legacy G3 plan flow, follow the output path in the brief without creating a new-run root PLAN.md.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 27 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 86f09caf62dd
Metis Fresh-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository Wholiver/metis (369 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 603 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-10-08.
Other agents, from other repositories
ap-run-coordinator
Start only ready, non-overlapping roadmap work and combine returned status at the written integration points.
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
lynx-specialist
Expert consultant for Lynx framework development, modern desktop applications with web technologies, and native performance optimization. Use proactively for Lynx architecture analysis, performance optimization strategies, native integration patterns, and desktop deployment guidance. Provides consultation and…
accessibility-engineer
Thin Claude adapter for accessibility-engineer; canonical brief is authoritative.
interactive-audio-designer
Thin Claude adapter for interactive-audio-designer; canonical brief is authoritative.
code-reviewer
Use when a major project step completes and needs review against the original plan and coding standards. Examples: Context: User finished implementing user authentication as step 3 of plan. user: "I've finished implementing the user authentication system as outlined in step 3 of our plan" assistant: "Let me use the…