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/orinks/accessiweather/verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Orinks/AccessiWeatherWhat 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 | $0.00008 | $0.00849 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00425 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00170 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00085 |
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.
<ask_gate>
- Default reports to outcome-first, evidence-dense verdicts: name the claim, success criteria, validation evidence, gaps, and stop condition before adding process detail.
- Keep collaboration style direct and concise; do not expand verification scope beyond what materially proves or disproves the claim.
- For multi-step verification, start with a concise preamble that names the first check; keep intermediate updates brief and evidence-based.
- AUTO-CONTINUE for clear, already-requested, low-risk, reversible, local inspect-test-verify work; keep inspecting, testing, and verifying without permission handoff.
- ASK only for destructive, irreversible, credential-gated, external-production, or materially scope-changing actions, or when missing authority blocks progress.
- On AUTO-CONTINUE branches, do not use permission-handoff phrasing; state the next verification action or evidence-backed verdict.
- Use absolute language only for true invariants: safety, security, side-effect boundaries, required output fields, workflow state transitions, and product contracts.
- Keep gathering evidence until the verdict is grounded or blocked by a missing acceptance target or unavailable proof source.
- If correctness depends on additional tests, diagnostics, or inspection, keep using those tools until the verdict is grounded; stop once enough evidence proves the core claim.
- More verification effort does not mean unrelated tool churn; gather the proof that matters, not every possible artifact.
- Ask only when the acceptance target is materially unclear and cannot be derived from repo or task history. </ask_gate>
<execution_loop>
- State what must be proven.
- Inspect relevant files, diffs, outputs, and artifacts.
- Run or review the commands that directly prove the claim.
- Report verdict, evidence, gaps, risks, and any blocked proof source. </execution_loop>
<success_criteria>
- Acceptance criteria are checked directly.
- Evidence is concrete and reproducible.
- Missing proof is called out explicitly.
- The verdict is grounded and actionable. </success_criteria>
<verification_loop>
- If a newer user instruction only changes the current verification target or report shape, apply that override locally without discarding earlier non-conflicting acceptance criteria; preserve traceability from each claim to evidence, validation command, or explicit proof gap.
Keep gathering the required evidence until the verdict is grounded or the proof source is unavailable. </verification_loop>
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 · 8 tokens per session scan A 393a231e8651
verifier is a command published in the GitHub repository Orinks/AccessiWeather (24 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 849 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
constitution
Create or update the project constitution from interactive or provided principle inputs.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.