Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add assafkip/kipi-system/plugin install kipi-dsseWrote 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/commands/assafkip/kipi-system/issue-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/assafkip/kipi-system/issue-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/assafkip/kipi-system/issue-verify/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/commands/assafkip/kipi-system/issue-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/assafkip/kipi-system/issue-verify.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 | $0.00013 | $0.01116 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00446 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00223 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
issue-verify scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured today.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Autonomy contract. This step is agent-handled, not founder-gated. Verify automatically once required_checks have all exited 0. Record the verified receipt without founder confirmation. The receipt itself is the audit signal: the founder reads it after the fact, not before. Founder-gated steps are still: /issue-approve, /prd-approve, /prd-split commit, and any scope amendment mid-issue. This step is not one of them.
Verify the active DSSE issue. Execute in order:
-
Run
python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_runner.py" status. Confirm an issue is loaded. Ifissue_idis null, stop and tell the founder to run/issue-start <issue-id>first. -
Commit the issue's work first. The size class (ASK-1749 tier) reads committed HEAD, so uncommitted code verifies, reviews and closes at L. Then run
python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_runner.py" verify.This ONE command is the whole step. It runs every check in the spec snapshot itself, records each check's exit code and an output hash as evidence, and writes the verified receipt only if all of them exit 0.
Do NOT run the checks by hand first.
verifyruns them from the snapshot taken at/issue-start, which is the thing the receipt attests to; a check you ran yourself from the live spec can differ from that snapshot, and the receipt would then describe a run nobody made. There is no way to record this receipt without running the checks --mark verifiedrefuses by design (ASK-402).An issue loaded after ASK-1810 (its state carries
"verify_contract": 2) gets more from the same command, all computed byverifyand sealed into the receipt, never typed:- a check that runs the full suite (
verify.sh --full, barepytest,kipi check) is refused before anything runs; CI runs it once per PR; real_path: which of the issue's non-test.pyfiles each check ran at its tracked path, seen byreal_path_observer/sitecustomize.py; a check that only runs a copy is refused;defined_vs_ran: test functions in each named Python test file, from the AST, against the runner's own count; hidden tests are refused;repeats: the checks rerun inside a 20-minute budget as many times as the diff's size class earns (S: 2, refused below 2; M and L: up to 10, refused below 5), and refused on any red run.mutants(ASK-2768): each mutant run recorded for this issue, judged against verify's own clean run.caughtnames the tests that failed only under the mutant; a test failing in both runs is not counted. Asilentmutant (the runner's output shows no new failure) is refused by name. No caught mutant is recorded asgap, not refused. A typed tally is never read: verify reads only<state_dir>/mutants/<issue_id>/*.json, and only themutantverb writes there.
To record a mutant (founder budget: one per new decision point): apply a one-line break to the tracked file, run
python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/issue_runner.py" mutant <name>(lowercase letters, digits, dashes), put the code back, then runverify. Themutantverb runs the snapshot's checks and stores their raw output; it never judges. Onlyverifyturns that output into a count. - a check that runs the full suite (
-
If
verifyexits 0:- Report: "verified receipt recorded at ."
- Read
checksfrom its JSON output and list them, one per line (checks_runis the count). - Under contract 2, also paste
real_path,defined_vs_ran,mutantsandrepeatsfrom the same JSON. These are the closeout numbers; do not restate them from memory. A mutant count that is not inmutantsis a claim, not a closeout number.
-
If
verifyexits 2:- It already printed which check failed and its exit code. Report that.
- The evidence is stored even on a red run; the receipt is withheld.
- An empty
required_checkslist also exits 2. That is not a passing issue, it is a spec with nothing to attest to: tell the founder to add a check or amend the spec. - Stop. Do not attempt to fix silently. Tell the founder.
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.
- today Changed · +3 lines db5bb386706b
- 16d ago Changed · +15 lines 3aa3db227ca1
- 1mo ago Changed · +16 lines e60756288cbe
- 2mo ago First seen · 39 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 0b948e550990
issue-verify is a command published in the GitHub repository assafkip/kipi-system (131 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 1,116 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 2026-08-30.
issue-verify compared with commands from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| issue-verifyassafkip/kipi-system | Command | 131 | today | MIT | A | 13 | Claude Code |
| recallmodeled-information-format/mnemonic | Command | 23 | 11d ago | MIT | A | 9 | Claude Code |
| querymodeled-information-format/mnemonic | Command | 23 | 11d ago | MIT | A | 9 | Claude Code |
| searchmodeled-information-format/mnemonic | Command | 23 | 11d ago | MIT | A | 8 | Claude Code |
| gcmodeled-information-format/mnemonic | Command | 23 | 11d ago | MIT | B | 7 | Claude Code |
| setupmodeled-information-format/mnemonic | Command | 23 | 11d ago | MIT | B | 8 | Claude Code |
| statusmodeled-information-format/mnemonic | Command | 23 | 11d ago | MIT | B | 8 | Claude Code |