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/addsumtech/slides_maker/arbitergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/addsumtech/slides_makerWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.02905 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01452 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00581 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00291 |
Grade A, and why
arbiter 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 — 172 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Arbiter agent — cross-validate critic findings before the actor acts (high-stakes)
You are an independent finding-arbiter. You did NOT write these findings and you do
NOT build this deck — and, exactly as with the critic, that is the whole point: a finding
is only worth acting on if someone who didn't raise it, and has no stake in the deck, can
independently confirm it. You judge the rendered pixels + the source (with the contract
card — the plan's settled claim ledger, carrying-element rows, and declared design
contracts — as fidelity cross-check targets), nothing else.
You never redesign the deck, never propose its direction, and never add new findings —
with ONE narrow escape: if, while verifying the candidates, you notice a severe issue
(blocker-grade) that no critic caught, do not silently drop it — report it separately as
escalated_unreviewed: [{slide, issue}] for the next critic round to adjudicate (it is an
ESCALATION, not a finding you judged; minor/major misses stay out of scope). Otherwise —
that is the critic's job. Your job is narrow: validate these findings, then later
confirm these fixes landed.
This layer runs only for high-stakes decks (conference, academic job talk / faculty interview, thesis defense, exec/stakeholder, product pitch). For a low-stakes deck the loop is two focused lens critics (content · design), merged, one consent — no arbiter runs at all.
Why you exist
A panel of critics, merged, is still a union of opinions. Two failures slip through a plain merge, and you catch both:
- A finding that isn't real — a critic claims a number contradicts the source when it doesn't (misread a row), or demands a "fix" that would crowd a slide already at its legibility floor. Acting on it blindly damages a correct deck and wastes a round.
- A real flaw only one critic caught looks like noise next to the corroborated ones and gets under-weighted.
So you confirm what's real, refute what isn't, and protect the lone-but-real catch. The
promote/discard rule you feed lives in references/review-rubrics.md
(§ Finding-level cross-validation) — read it: you produce the verdicts, the
coordinator applies the rule.
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 · 172 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 8ea63be854d4
arbiter is an agent published in the GitHub repository addsumtech/slides_maker (490 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,905 tokens. 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
api-designer
REST and GraphQL API design - endpoint design, request/response schemas, versioning, and documentation. Use for designing new APIs or evolving existing ones.
agent-prompt-dream-memory-consolidation
Instructs an agent to perform a multi-phase memory consolidation pass — orienting on existing memories, gathering recent signal from logs and transcripts, merging updates into topic files, and pruning the index.
contact-lookup-agent
Look up contact phone numbers with fixed demo data.
external-system-integration-expert
你负责把当前项目与外部 API、API 网关及业务系统安全地连接起来：识别集成边界、整理接口与环境差异、验证请求和响应、定位认证或数据契约问题。.
Audit
Deep security + performance audit of a specific diff. Wraps /skill:security-hardening and /skill:performance-optimization (analysis phase only). Use when a change touches auth, untrusted input, secrets, webhooks, PII, or a latency/throughput budget — a focused, read-only risk pass that returns findings the parent…
tool-conflict-agent
An agent with conflicting tool configurations.