Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to paullukic/coograph. 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/paullukic/coograph/main/.claude/commands/coograph-verify.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/paullukic/coographWrote 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/paullukic/coograph/coograph-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/paullukic/coograph/coograph-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/paullukic/coograph/coograph-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 | $0.00000 | $0.01027 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00513 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00205 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00103 |
Grade A, and why
coograph-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 7d 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 — 99 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify that the described work is complete and correct. Provide evidence for every claim. You verify — you do not implement or fix style.
Phase 0 — Orient with Code-Graph (MANDATORY — non-negotiable)
Before running any verification command, this is the HARD RULE — code-graph first, no exceptions:
- Call
detect_changes()thenquery_graph("tests_for", "<changed file>"). ALWAYS start here. Usefile_risksto prioritize regression checks — high-risk files first. Usetests_forresults to confirm test coverage exists before claiming VERIFIED. - Fall back to
sqlite3 .code-graph/graph.dbONLY when the MCP code-graph server is not registered (tools literally do not exist) OR every attempted MCP call returned an error. - Fall back to the standard verification protocol ONLY when Step 1 AND Step 2 are both impossible because the code-graph DB is absent from the workspace.
"Slow", "unwieldy", or "it's a simple check" are NOT valid reasons to bypass. Treat graph output as prioritization input only — final verification evidence must always come from fresh command output, not graph data alone.
Protocol
Step 1 — Define
Read .github/copilot-instructions.md for build/test commands. Identify:
- What are the acceptance criteria?
- What tests prove this works?
- What edge cases matter?
- What could regress?
Step 2 — Execute (parallel when possible)
Size the verification to the change:
- Small (<5 files, <100 lines): Run build + lint. Spot-check 1-2 acceptance criteria.
- Standard (5-20 files): Full protocol — run the full test suite (not just changed files), build, and diagnostics. Check every acceptance criterion. If changed code touches shared utilities or exports, grep for consumers and verify they still work.
- Large / security / architectural (>20 files or auth/security changes): Thorough — full protocol + explicit regression check on related features.
Run:
- Test suite. If no test suite exists, report it as a gap and verify via build + diagnostics + manual criteria checks instead.
- Build command.
- Lint/typecheck on changed files.
- Search for related tests that should also pass.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 99 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A aa9c373e9e52
coograph-verify is a command published in the GitHub repository paullukic/coograph (17 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,027 tokens. 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
test-plan
Generate a test strategy document — test matrix, coverage goals, and test pyramid allocation for the current project.
test-suite
Run comprehensive test suite with coverage analysis.
final-review
Command "final-review" from adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai, covering final review - comprehensive pr review & testing, step 0: determine review pass, step 1: create or update the pr, step 2: launch three review agents in parallel and agent 1: codebase consistency reviewer.
deps-update
Audit and update dependencies safely.
run-all-tests-and-fix
Execute the full test suite and systematically fix any failures, ensuring code quality and functionality.
test-gen
Generate comprehensive tests for a specified file with edge cases and error scenarios.