Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to basher83/agent-auditor. 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/basher83/agent-auditor/main/.claude/commands/verify-claims.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/basher83/agent-auditorWrote 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/basher83/agent-auditor/verify-claims)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/basher83/agent-auditor/verify-claims"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/basher83/agent-auditor/verify-claims/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/basher83/agent-auditor/verify-claims"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/basher83/agent-auditor/verify-claims.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 | $0.00011 | $0.01248 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00499 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00250 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00125 |
Grade A, and why
verify-claims 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 204 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Task: Verify Claims About Code
Document to verify: $ARGUMENTS
Purpose: Verify factual claims in documents about code implementations, features, tests, or PRs.
Core 4 Foundation:
- Context: Document with claims + git repository state
- Model: Semantic verification capabilities
- Prompt: This systematic verification process
- Tools: Git commands, file operations
Instructions
You are verifying claims in the document specified above. Your job is to check facts against source truth, not provide philosophical insights.
Core Principles
- Evidence before claims: Never mark verified without git command output proving it
- Verify behavior, not names: Check what code DOES. Different filenames can provide same functionality.
- Counter-evidence first: Define what would disprove claim BEFORE checking
- Cross-reference patterns: If "X missing Y but Z has Y," check what Y IS in Z first
- No meta-analysis: No recursive patterns, cognitive dynamics, or turtles
Verification Process
For each claim:
- Extract claim: Quote exactly
- Identify verification need: What file/code would prove/disprove?
- Define counter-evidence: "This claim would be FALSE if I found [specific evidence]"
- Focus on FUNCTIONALITY not filenames
- Cross-reference if comparing: Check what feature IS in reference first
- Run verification: Use git show/diff/grep
- Show evidence: Paste relevant output
- State verdict: ✅ Verified / ❌ Incorrect / ⚠️ Partially true
- Move to next claim: No commentary, just next verification
Example: The Naming vs Functionality Pattern
Claim: "PR #7 missing Jina Reader direct API variation"
What this means: PR #7 lacks script making direct HTTP calls to r.jina.ai (not using MCP)
Counter-evidence: ANY script in PR #7 that:
- Uses httpx/requests (not MCP dependencies)
- Calls https://r.jina.ai/
- Downloads docs directly
Commands:
# Check what files exist
git diff --name-only main...feature-branch
# Check dependencies
git show feature-branch:path/to/script.py | head -20
# Check for API calls
git show feature-branch:path/to/script.py | grep "r.jina.ai"
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 · 204 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 316c9b9169d3
verify-claims is a command published in the GitHub repository basher83/agent-auditor (5 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 1,248 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).