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 commands/ferroxlabs/ijfw/ijfw-verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/FerroxLabs/ijfwWrote 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/ferroxlabs/ijfw/ijfw-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ferroxlabs/ijfw/ijfw-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ferroxlabs/ijfw/ijfw-verify.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00031 | $0.00782 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00391 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00156 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
ijfw-verify scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 6d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Ledger gate (run first): Before emitting any VERIFY PASS, read the execute-issues ledger:
read_issues() {
local f=".ijfw/state/execute-issues.json"
[ -f "$f" ] || { printf '{"issues":[]}'; return; }
cat "$f"
}
If any entry has status: unresolved (any kind: task-incomplete, task-stagnated, unsafe-verify, plan-review), emit ISSUE and halt:
ISSUE: unresolved-execute-issues
count: <N>
ids: [iss_001, iss_003]
action: resolve with /ijfw-execute resolve <id> <note> before verifying
Missing file = zero issues (day-1 fresh-install protection). Do not crash.
Plausibility is not correctness. Run the full Verify phase of the IJFW workflow. This is the quality gate before shipping -- a structured audit of everything built against the original brief. Every claim must trace to a command output, a test pass, or a manual verification you actually performed; never report "done" based on a plausible-looking diff alone.
What runs:
- Functional checks: all tests pass, startup verified, offline behavior tested
- Behavior diff against
main: when relevant, run the same scenario onmainand on the working tree, compare outputs side by side. Catches silent regressions that pass tests but change observable behavior. Skip for purely additive changes (new files, new endpoints) where there is nomainbaseline to diff against. - UX audit: first impression, no "feel stupid" moments, every error has a recovery path
- Security and quality: auth on every endpoint, parameterised queries, no leaked secrets, accessibility, linter clean
- Brief alignment: every success criterion from Discovery is checked explicitly
Multi-AI Quality Trident (Donahoe P9): For critical work, Verify also prepares
a cross-audit document summarizing what was built and key risk areas, ready for
review in Gemini, Codex, or another AI session. Use /cross-audit to generate it
explicitly.
This command invokes ijfw-workflow at the D5 Verify phase directly. IJFW owns
the audit loop end-to-end.
Natural triggers: "verify the work", "run the audit", "check everything", "quality gate", "are we ready to ship?"
If gaps are found, Verify stays open until they're resolved -- it does not auto-advance to Ship on a partial pass.
GATE: Verify phase ends at the SHIP GATE -- original brief re-read, what was built matches what was asked. All items pass before advancing to Ship.
Confidence declaration (required at end of Verify): Every Verify finding is tagged with one of:
- VERIFIED -- command was run, raw output is available, anyone can reproduce it.
- LIKELY -- reasoning provided (code read, docs consulted), not externally verified this session.
- GUESSING -- insufficient information, best guess only.
- ISSUE -- blocker or bug surfaced; stop and document rather than advance.
Verify does not auto-advance to Ship with any finding tagged GUESSING or ISSUE. VERIFIED findings clear the gate; LIKELY findings require user acknowledgement. This is the scoped adoption of Damir Zorcic's "Declare Confidence" law, applied at ship-gate boundaries where the rigor earns its weight.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 67 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 11d7fe5dd492
ijfw-verify is a command published in the GitHub repository FerroxLabs/ijfw (210 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 782 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 commands, from other repositories
constitution
根据交互输入或已提供原则创建或更新项目章程,并确保相关模板保持同步。.
core-review
Review code changes against SpecOps project-specific patterns. Catches recurring failure modes from real PRs — tool abstraction violations, generated file drift, cross-platform gaps, variable inconsistencies, and more. Complements full-review-gate (generic quality) and pr-fix (applying bot comments).
resolve-conflicts
Resolve merge conflicts on a GitHub PR by merging the base branch into the PR branch in an isolated git worktree, with JSON/markdown-aware conflict resolution.
ship-pr
Commit all changes to a new branch, push, and open a PR for review. The original branch stays clean.
implement
Execute implementation by processing atomic task files one at a time with Context Pinning (Atomic Traceability Model).
delegate
Delegate a coding task to the Cursor CLI agent (Composer by default).