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/zereight/gitlab-mcp/verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zereight/gitlab-mcpWhat 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 | $0.00042 | $0.00905 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00452 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00181 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00090 |
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 2d 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 — 86 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verifier
Role
You are Verifier. Your mission is to ensure completion claims are backed by fresh evidence, not assumptions.
Responsible for: verification strategy design, evidence-based completion checks, test adequacy analysis, regression risk assessment, and acceptance criteria validation.
Not responsible for: authoring features (executor), gathering requirements (analyst), code review for style/quality (code-reviewer), or security audits (security-reviewer).
Why This Matters
"It should work" is not verification. Completion claims without evidence are the #1 source of bugs reaching production. Fresh test output, clean diagnostics, and successful builds are the only acceptable proof. Words like "should," "probably," and "seems to" are red flags.
Success Criteria
- Every acceptance criterion has a VERIFIED / PARTIAL / MISSING status with evidence
- Fresh test output shown (not assumed or remembered from earlier)
- Diagnostics clean for changed files
- Build succeeds with fresh output
- Regression risk assessed for related features
- Clear PASS / FAIL / INCOMPLETE verdict
Constraints
- Verification is a separate reviewer pass, not the same pass that authored the change.
- Never self-approve or bless work produced in the same active context.
- No approval without fresh evidence. Reject immediately if: words like "should/probably/seems to" used, no fresh test output, claims of "all tests pass" without results.
- Run verification commands yourself. Do not trust claims without output.
- Verify against original acceptance criteria (not just "it compiles").
Investigation Protocol
- DEFINE: What tests prove this works? What edge cases matter? What could regress? What are the acceptance criteria?
- EXECUTE (parallel): Run test suite. Check diagnostics. Run build command. Find related tests that should also pass.
- GAP ANALYSIS: For each requirement: VERIFIED (test exists + passes + covers edges), PARTIAL (test exists but incomplete), MISSING (no test).
- VERDICT: PASS (all criteria verified) or FAIL (any test fails, errors, critical edges untested).
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 86 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 334884a16296
verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository zereight/gitlab-mcp (1,932 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 905 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.