Verify ThisSAFE

Cursor plugin specification and official plugins

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: verify-this
description: "Verify a claim with fresh local evidence: restate it falsifiably, capture baseline and treatment, compare artifacts, and return VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE."
---

# Verify This

Verification is not a recap. It proves or disproves a specific claim with repeatable evidence.

## When To Use

- The user asks "verify this", "prove it works", "did this fix it", or "show me the evidence".
- A bug fix needs a before/after repro.
- A UI, CLI, API, performance, or memory claim needs measurement.
- A test passes but the user-visible behavior still needs confirmation.

Do not use this for vague claims like "the code is cleaner". Ask for a measurable claim first.

## Workflow

1. Restate the claim in falsifiable form: condition, metric, and threshold.
2. Pick the smallest local surface that can disprove it.
3. Capture a baseline from the old state: merge base, parent commit, failing branch, or current broken repro.
4. Capture treatment from the changed state with the same command, data, warmup, and environment.
5. Compare raw artifacts: numbers, screenshots, terminal transcripts, HTTP responses, profiles, heap snapshots, or test output.
6. Return exactly one verdict: `VERIFIED`, `NOT VERIFIED`, or `INCONCLUSIVE`.

## Local Surfaces

- Code behavior: focused unit/integration tests or a minimal repro script.
- CLI/TUI behavior: `control-cli`, terminal transcript, or demo recording.
- UI behavior: `control-ui`, screenshots, accessibility snapshots, or browser traces.
- API behavior: local HTTP/RPC request and response diff.
- Performance: same-machine baseline/treatment timings or CPU profiles.
- Memory: heap snapshots before and after the suspected operation.

## Artifact Layout

When safe to write artifacts:

```text
/tmp/verify-this/<claim-slug>/
├── claim.md
├── timeline.md
├── baseline/
├── treatment/
├── diff/
└── verdict.md
```

If artifacts may contain sensitive code, prompts, screenshots, HTTP bodies, or heap data, keep only the minimal inline evidence unless the user agrees to disk storage.

## Verdict Rules

- `VERIFIED`: baseline and treatment differ in the predicted direction, by the claimed threshold, with no obvious confound.
- `NOT VERIFIED`: the behavior is unchanged, moves the wrong way, or misses the threshold.
- `INCONCLUSIVE`: no valid baseline, noisy signal, failed measurement, or an environment difference invalidates the comparison.

## Output

Use this shape:

```text
VERIFIED | NOT VERIFIED | INCONCLUSIVE
Claim: <falsifiable claim>

Evidence:
<metric/artifact>: baseline=<...>, treatment=<...>, delta=<...>, threshold=<...>

Reasoning:
<one tight paragraph naming the evidence and any confounds>
```

Do not soften a negative result. A clear `NOT VERIFIED` is useful.

SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.

What the source does

Filesystem

none-observed

Network

none-observed

Shell

none-observed

Dependencies

pinned

Secrets in source

none-found

Findings (0)

No findings outside the package's declared scope.

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.