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/sk-lim19f/hypomnema/verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sk-lim19f/HypomnemaWrote 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/sk-lim19f/hypomnema/verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sk-lim19f/hypomnema/verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sk-lim19f/hypomnema/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 | $0.00030 | $0.00633 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00316 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
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 yesterday.
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 — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are running /hypo:verify. Audit wiki pages for overdue or missing verify_by fields.
What this does
- Scans
pages/andprojects/for pages of typesadr,page,learning,concept,playbook,tool-eval - Reports overdue pages (past
verify_by_date), upcoming (within 14 days), and pages missing averify_byquestion
Step 1 — Run
Bundled scripts here run via ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/. To resolve that package root: if ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT} is already an absolute path, use it; otherwise read pkgRoot from ~/.claude/hypo-pkg.json (only when non-empty and the target script exists under it); otherwise use the hypo@hypomnema (or legacy hypomnema@hypomnema) installPath in ~/.claude/plugins/installed_plugins.json; if none resolve, stop and tell the user to run hypomnema upgrade --apply (or /hypo:upgrade on a plugin install) or reinstall instead of guessing the cache layout.
node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/verify.mjs [--hypo-dir="<path>"] [--file=<path>]
Options:
--file=<path>— check a single page only (useful after editing a page)
Step 2 — Report results
Show the script output verbatim:
✗ Overdue— page is past itsverify_by_date; requires immediate review⚠ Due soon— within 14 days⚠ Missing verify_by— tracked page has no verification question set✓— all pages up to date
Step 3 — Offer to review overdue pages
For each overdue page, ask:
"[[]] is overdue for verification. The question was: '<verify_by>'. Is this still accurate?"
If the user confirms it is still accurate:
- Update
verify_by_dateto a new future date (suggest 90 days from today)
If the user says it is outdated:
- Help update the page content
- Reset
verify_by_dateand optionally reviseverify_by
Step 4 — Add missing verify_by fields
For pages missing verify_by, suggest a verification question based on the page type:
concept/learning: "Is this still the recommended approach?"playbook: "Has this procedure been tested recently?"tool-eval: "Is this evaluation still current? Check for a newer version."adr: "Is this decision still in effect, or has it been superseded?"
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.
- yesterday Changed 03aeb9ca5538
- 5d ago First seen · 61 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A abefd5290fed
verify is a command published in the GitHub repository sk-lim19f/Hypomnema (10 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 633 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 2026-08-31.
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.
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.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.