verd
Five minds enter. They argue, challenge, cross-examine. Only the truth walks out.
verd spawns multiple AI models from different families — each with a specialized role, has them debate your question across rounds, then a stronger judge delivers the final verdict with strengths, issues, and actionable fixes.
Use it everywhere: CLI for code reviews, MCP inside Claude Code and Cursor, and Slack as @verd in any conversation.
Getting Started
Requires Python 3.11+.
pip install verd
verd setup
The setup wizard walks you through provider selection (OpenRouter, LiteLLM, or other) and outputs the exact config you need — for both CLI (.env) and MCP (JSON to paste into your editor config).
verd runs multiple models in parallel (Claude, Gemini, GPT, DeepSeek) so it needs a multi-provider router. OpenRouter is the easiest — one key, all models. LiteLLM proxy works too.
Usage
CLI
verd "can this auth middleware be bypassed?" -f auth.py middleware.py
verdh "should we merge this?" -gb main # deep mode — 5 models, 3 rounds
MCP (Claude Code / Cursor) — use verd, verdl, verdh as tools directly in chat:
verdh based on the context above and this file, do you think we can proceed?
is this approach correct given what we discussed, use verdl
Slack — mention @verd in any channel or thread:
@verd what do you think? — reads thread context, debates, replies
@verd deep is this secure? — uses verdh (5 models, 3 rounds)
/verd Kafka, SQS, or RabbitMQ for our event pipeline? — slash command with live progress
verd is for critical decisions and deep analysis — not simple lookups. If a single model can answer it, verd is overkill.
Output
FAIL 77% In-memory rate limiter is unsafe for production
claude:FAIL gpt:FAIL gemini:FAIL gpt:FAIL (FULL)
+ Conceptually correct sliding-window logic
- Global dict is unsynchronized — race conditions in multi-thread servers
- Per-user lists grow without bounds — memory leak / DoS vector
! gpt-5-mini caught the risk of system clock jumps with time.time()
→ Move state to Redis with atomic operations
completed in 69.3s • 22,449 tokens • ~$0.07
Vote breakdown, unique catches (!), dissent, strengths, issues, and actionable fixes — all in one view.
Modes
| Command | Debaters | Roles | Rounds | Speed | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
verdl |
2 + judge | analyst, devils_advocate | 1 | ~15s+ | ~$0.01 |
verd |
4 + judge | analyst, devils_advocate, logic_checker, pragmatist | 2 | ~30s+ | ~$0.05+ |
verdh |
5 + judge | analyst, devils_advocate, logic_checker, fact_checker, pragmatist | 3 | ~60s+ | ~$0.25+ |
Benchmark
Tested on the Martian Code Review Benchmark — 50 real PRs from Cal.com, Discourse, Grafana, Keycloak, and Sentry with expert-labeled golden comments. No code-review-specific tuning.
| Mode | Precision | Recall | F1 Score | Avg Issues |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.4 (alone) | 13.0% | 70.6% | 21.9% | 14.6 |
| Claude Opus 4.6 (alone) | 18.5% | 69.9% | 29.2% | 10.1 |
| verdh (5-model debate) | 29.1% | 64.0% | 40.0% | 5.9 |
+37% F1 over Claude solo. 57% more precise. 42% fewer false positives.
How it works
- Your question + content gets sent to multiple AI models in parallel
- Each model has a specialized role (analyst, devils_advocate, logic_checker, fact_checker, pragmatist)
- Models see each other's responses and cross-examine for 1-3 rounds
- Anti-groupthink prompts ensure models hold their ground when they have evidence — consensus without new evidence is rejected
- A stronger judge model synthesizes the debate, weighting each reviewer by their role
- Confidence is calculated from vote distribution — a fact_checker's dissent lowers confidence more than a devils_advocate's expected pushback
- You get: verdict, vote breakdown, strengths, issues, unique catches, dissent, and actionable fixes
The key insight: different model families have different blind spots and training biases. Claude spots nuance GPT misses. Gemini catches logic errors DeepSeek overlooks. More importantly — if the same model writes the review and judges its quality, it's likely to agree with itself. Cross-model diversity means the judge is a genuine quality gate, not a model grading its own homework. The debate surfaces what each model uniquely caught and tells you exactly which model caught what.
Roles
| Role | Job | Example catch |
|---|---|---|
| analyst | Balanced initial assessment, main arguments for and against | "The architecture is sound but the auth flow has a gap" |
| devils_advocate | Find what others miss — edge cases, hidden assumptions, failure modes | "What happens when the token expires mid-transaction?" |
| logic_checker | Verify reasoning quality — fallacies, off-by-one, race conditions | "The pagination math is wrong: total_pages needs ceil division" |
| fact_checker | Web-grounded verification — do these APIs/libraries actually work? | "That library was deprecated in v3, use the new API" |
| pragmatist | Real-world practicality — will this ship? What's the ops burden? | "This works but needs 3 new infra dependencies your team doesn't know" |
The judge weighs each reviewer's input by role — a fact_checker citing sources carries more weight than a devils_advocate pushing back.
Config
Override models via env vars or CLI flags. Per-tier env vars let you set different models for each mode:
VERDL_JUDGE=o4-mini VERDL_DEBATERS=gpt-4.1-mini,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview
VERD_JUDGE=o3 VERD_DEBATERS=claude-sonnet-4-6,gpt-4.1,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,gpt-4.1-mini
VERDH_JUDGE=o3 VERDH_DEBATERS=claude-opus-4-6,deepseek-r1,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,sonar-pro,gpt-4.1
Or use VERD_JUDGE / VERD_DEBATERS as a global override for all tiers. verd setup generates the right config for your provider.
Flags
-c TEXT inline content string
-f FILE [FILE ...] one or more files to evaluate
-d [DIR] read all files in a directory (default: current dir)
-g use unstaged git diff as content
-gs use staged git diff as content
-gb REF use git diff REF...HEAD as content (e.g. main)
-a / --all scan all files, skip smart selection (use with -d)
--ext EXT [EXT ...] filter by extension (use with -d)
--exclude PATTERN glob patterns to exclude (use with -d)
-q / --quiet hide debate transcript, show only verdict
--json output raw JSON
--judge MODEL override judge model
--debaters MODEL ... override debater models
--budget USD max cost in USD — abort if estimate exceeds budget
--timeout SECONDS override timeout per model call
--version show version and exit
MCP — Claude Code / Cursor
verd setup # select "MCP" and your provider
This prints the exact JSON to paste into ~/.claude/settings.json (Claude Code) or ~/.cursor/mcp.json (Cursor), with the correct absolute path to verd-mcp and model overrides for your provider. Then use verd, verdl, or verdh as tools directly in chat.
Slack
Install with Slack dependencies:
pip install "verd[slack]"
Create a Slack app with Socket Mode enabled, add bot scopes (app_mentions:read, channels:history, groups:history, chat:write, reactions:write, im:history, im:write, users:read), then:
export SLACK_BOT_TOKEN=xoxb-...
export SLACK_APP_TOKEN=xapp-...
export SLACK_SIGNING_SECRET=...
verd-slack
Optional: restrict access via environment variables:
export VERD_ALLOWED_CHANNELS=C123,C456 # empty = all channels
export VERD_ALLOWED_USERS=U123,U456 # empty = all users
Metadata
Release files for verd 0.4.0
For a detailed explanation of source distributions (sdists) and built distributions (wheels), please see the package formats documentation.
Source distribution (sdist)
| File | Size | Uploaded | Provenance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| verd-0.4.0.tar.gz | 47.1 kB | Without provenance | Details |
Built distribution (wheel)
| File | Interpreter | ABI | Platform | Reset |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| verd-0.4.0-py3-none-any.whl | Python 3 | none | any | Details |
Total release size: 89.5 kB
Release files / verd-0.4.0.tar.gz
| Download URL | verd-0.4.0.tar.gz |
|---|---|
| Size | 47.1 kB |
| Tags | Source |
|
SHA-256 checksum How to use checksums |
965e9a846b7bff9fba76552ddf77df13c1495b4a1b019c16c1eb1f1903fcfee4
|
|
BLAKE2b-256 checksum How to use checksums |
3dbab6af0fd528ab69ba8bec581bc0ac67461a9b580d8c728d61a77ec1f8668a
|
| Upload date | |
|
Uploaded using Trusted Publishing? What is trusted publishing? |
No |
| Uploaded via |
twine/6.2.0 CPython/3.12.3
|
Release files / verd-0.4.0-py3-none-any.whl
| Download URL | verd-0.4.0-py3-none-any.whl |
|---|---|
| Size | 42.4 kB |
| Tags | Python 3 |
|
SHA-256 checksum How to use checksums |
9aca53ac780f7a7335410a6bd7cc62400a98bc1d739a73568ede22992dbafd67
|
|
BLAKE2b-256 checksum How to use checksums |
da6b154151209e65819b35d4485955fb3fc472ddc3f841a84cb5d3eb6d9db635
|
| Upload date | |
|
Uploaded using Trusted Publishing? What is trusted publishing? |
No |
| Uploaded via |
twine/6.2.0 CPython/3.12.3
|
Security for verd 0.4.0
Provenance
Provenance describes where a file came from. On PyPI, provenance is shared via attestations, which provide a verifiable record of the build or publishing details. View details, limitations and caveats.
No provenance found
None of the files in this release were uploaded with provenance metadata.
A note on package security
PyPI is a repository for distributing packages, not a service for auditing them. While third-party security researchers and our staff do their best to detect and remove malicious packages, PyPI cannot guarantee the quality, security or suitability of any given package.
To learn more about protecting yourself from malicious actors, visit our package security documentation.