Happier is an open-source, end-to-end encrypted client that lets people run AI coding-agent sessions on a computer and continue controlling them from a phone, browser, or desktop app. It is for developers who use agents such as Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, or OpenCode across multiple devices, with self-hosting available. The catalogue entries are add-ons for configuring or extending this client and its supported coding-agent workflows.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to happier-dev/happier. 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/happier-dev/happier/dev/.agents/skills/verify-claims/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/happier-dev/happierWrote 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/skills/happier-dev/happier/verify-claims)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/happier-dev/happier/verify-claims"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/happier-dev/happier/verify-claims/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/skills/happier-dev/happier/verify-claims"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/happier-dev/happier/verify-claims.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00073 | $0.00659 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00264 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00132 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
verify-claims 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 1mo 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 — 32 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify Claims
Take a report — a subagent's, a lane's, a plan's, or your own from earlier — and re-derive its load-bearing claims instead of trusting how they sound. Full doctrine: docs/agent-craft.md §4.
Procedure
- Extract the load-bearing claims — those whose falseness would change the decision being made. Ignore decoration; auditing everything dilutes the audit.
- Re-derive each from a primary source. Source hierarchy: running code > tests > docs > comments > memory. Each step down the ladder is a step toward hearsay.
- Use a different path than the claim arrived by. Claim from reading code → check with a runtime observation. Claim from a test → read the code the test exercises. Two derivations sharing a path share that path's blind spot.
- Verify decision-material measurements against primary evidence. Recompute derived counts from raw records. For test, coverage, and timing claims, inspect the actual command/workload, terminal output, and relevant source/environment basis; a summary or inherited counter is insufficient. Match a named commit/artifact exactly; for dirty work, inspect the relevant current paths and account for concurrent changes. Apply root Validation to reuse versus re-execution: rerun when evidence is missing, stale, contradictory, cannot establish the claimed result, or independent risk-selected verification requires it. A new handoff alone does not require repeating every successful suite. Decorative counts should be removed.
- Treat plausibility as zero evidence. Narrative fit is what generated the claim, so "sounds right" is correlated with exactly the error being hunted. Check the best-fitting claims first, not last.
- Downgrade what you cannot verify. If re-derivation is too expensive, do not skip and do not trust: relabel the claim as an assumption and carry it labeled.
For claims of backward, forward, mixed-version, upgrade, or rollback compatibility, use .agents/skills/happier-compatibility. Re-derive the claim against the exact released tag/artifact or applicable predecessor worktree basis, the real old/new component roles, and every claimed direction. A current-code fixture or mock that merely agrees with the current implementation is not independent compatibility evidence.
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.
- 1mo ago Changed 3d95abcfdad8
- 1mo ago Changed baeb371117f6
- 1mo ago First seen · 32 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A 7dcb7e2a3bbb
verify-claims is a skill published in the GitHub repository happier-dev/happier (2,072 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 659 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
agtx-review
Self-review completed work. Check for correctness, edge cases, and code quality. Write review to .agtx/review.md and stop.
cmux-review
Review agent-written changes before merge, after substantial edits, or when re-reviewing a repair. Use the adversarial protocol for high-risk changes or an explicitly requested deep review.
pr
Draft a PR body from OMC's paper trail — the smallest visual that proves the change, evidence consumed from the verify protocol (never re-collected), reversibility from the ADR test on the diff, glossary language throughout.
archify-review
Review Archify issues, PRs, or code through value, cost, and impact to support evidence-based maintenance decisions. Use for issue triage, change reviews, and code quality assessments.
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
verify-change
A change-checking skill that reviews code differences and checks whether related documentation, tests, and records were updated.