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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/YourTechBud/coding-harness-configWrote 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/yourtechbud/coding-harness-config/verify-docs)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/yourtechbud/coding-harness-config/verify-docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/yourtechbud/coding-harness-config/verify-docs/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/yourtechbud/coding-harness-config/verify-docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/yourtechbud/coding-harness-config/verify-docs.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 | $0.00005 | $0.00777 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00311 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00155 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
verify-docs 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 2mo 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
Review all documentation in docs/ and verify it against our conversation.
<verification_criteria>
- No contradictions: identify any statements in docs that conflict with or contradict what we discussed in this conversation.
- Self-explanatory: flag places where a reader would be confused without context they don't have — undefined terms, missing prerequisites, unclear steps, unstated assumptions.
- Nothing important missed: identify topics, decisions, or details from our conversation that should be documented but are absent or incomplete across docs/.
- Consolidation opportunities: identify duplication, redundancy, and excess verbosity across docs/. Suggest merges (files/sections/paragraphs/sentences), trims, or "single source of truth + links" improvements that increase findability without losing any details.
- Structure compliance: verify docs follow the repo docs architecture:
- Doc root is
docs/. - Required directories exist (even if empty):
docs/architecture/docs/journeys/docs/product/
docs/contains Markdown-only: no non-.mdfiles anywhere underdocs/.docs/README.mdis the single canonical index and must:- describe scope for
architecture/,journeys/,product/, plus any custom top-leveldocs/<dir>/present - list/link every file under
docs/excludingdocs/README.mditself - group links by top-level directory (include "Docs root (discouraged)" if any root-level docs exist)
- describe scope for
.mdfiles directly underdocs/(besidesdocs/README.md) are discouraged but allowed; call them out as a recommendation to move. </verification_criteria>
- Doc root is
- Produce a narrative verification report covering:
- What you reviewed (which files)
- Findings for each criterion (contradictions, clarity gaps, missing content)
- Findings for structure compliance (pass/fail + concrete issues + concrete fixes)
- Concrete suggested edits where issues are found (specific files and sections)
- Consolidation opportunities (specific, actionable merge/trim/link suggestions; include this section even if empty)
- An overall plain-language verdict
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 55 lines · 5 tokens per session scan A 7477512edce8
verify-docs is a command published in the GitHub repository YourTechBud/coding-harness-config (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 5 tokens to every session and 777 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
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.
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.
speckit.bug.fix
Apply the remediation from a bug assessment and record what was changed.
speckit.bug.test
Validate that a previously fixed bug is resolved and record the verification report.