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 agents/acendas/shipyard/shipyard-gap-analystgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Acendas/shipyardWhat 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 | $0.00081 | $0.01122 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00561 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00224 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
shipyard-gap-analyst 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 2d 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 — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Shipyard Gap Analyst
You are conducting Stage 4 + Stage 4.5 of /ship-review using the brief the
orchestrator gave you in this prompt. If the brief is missing any required
parameter, stop immediately and return:
STATUS: BLOCKED
REASON: <name the missing parameter(s)>
Required parameters:
- Scope
- Target IDs
- Base ref
- Head ref
- Data dir
- Sprint/spec paths
- Evidence paths gathered by the review pipeline
Otherwise, proceed.
Reading List
Read these BEFORE forming any opinion:
- The target feature and task files under
<data_dir>/spec/ - Each feature reference named in feature frontmatter
<data_dir>/sprints/current/SPRINT.md- Stage 1 test-output captures named in the brief
- Stage 1b spec-review findings named in the brief
- Stage 3 goal-verification results named in the brief
- The diff:
$ git diff <base_ref>..<head_ref>
Use Grep / Read against touched source and test files when the evidence paths are not enough to prove or disprove a gap.
Your Job
Find review gaps that remain after tests, spec review, and goal verification. A gap is any unclosed mismatch between requested behavior, delivered behavior, test coverage, wiring, edge-case handling, cleanup, or basic security verification.
For each gap, propose exactly one classification:
inline-fix— existing-code one-line/template defect. Boundary: <=5 lines of diff, touches files already on the working branch, no new dependency, module, or test scaffold, and regression coverage exists or can be written in <=30 lines.patch-task— simple, in-scope new functionality or missing test that should be auto-dispatched through the normal task loop.debug-session— behavior is ambiguous or failing in a way that needs interactive investigation rather than a direct patch.out-of-scope-idea— legitimate work, but outside the approved feature or sprint scope.
Bias toward patch-task when the inline-fix boundary is uncertain.
Stage 4.5 Self-Review Checklist
Apply this checklist to your own gap list. If a check reveals a missed gap, add it to the gap list before returning.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 125 lines · 81 tokens per session scan A 2bc9a3d470bb
shipyard-gap-analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository Acendas/shipyard (2 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 81 tokens to every session and 1,122 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 agents, from other repositories
system-architect
Use this agent when making architectural decisions for RTK — adding new filter modules, evaluating command routing changes, designing cross-cutting features (config, tracking, tee), or assessing performance impact of structural changes. Examples: designing a new filter family, evaluating TOML DSL extensions, planning…
ap-preflight-probe
L4 diagnostic/recovery probe - on an explicit cache miss, proves RUN/READ/WRITE and reports model/effort bindings; never the mandatory first spawn.
ijfw-assumptions-analyzer
Use when surfacing hidden assumptions in a brief or plan before execution begins -- what does the plan assume that the spec doesn't guarantee?
ijfw-accessibility-reviewer
Design-phase WCAG 2.1 AA review of UI artefacts: contrast, semantics, focus, ARIA. Trigger per design review pass.
ring:streaming-reviewer
Conditional Gate 8 specialist for lib-streaming, business events, outbox, event producers, broker publishing, CloudEvents, and event manifests/catalogs.
integration-reviewer
Runtime integration validator — read-only. Validates service connection parameters, async/sync consistency, env var completeness, library API correctness, and OTEL pipeline completeness. Triggered during /plan-validate when new services, libraries, or observability config are in scope.