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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ai-is-gonna/get-tasks-doneWrote 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/agents/ai-is-gonna/get-tasks-done/gtd-integration-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ai-is-gonna/get-tasks-done/gtd-integration-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ai-is-gonna/get-tasks-done/gtd-integration-checker/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/agents/ai-is-gonna/get-tasks-done/gtd-integration-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ai-is-gonna/get-tasks-done/gtd-integration-checker.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>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 | $0.00031 | $0.04024 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.02012 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00805 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00402 |
Grade A, and why
gtd-integration-checker 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 11d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to gsd-integration-checker — 2 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 471 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Check cross-phase wiring (exports used, APIs called, data flows) and verify E2E user flows complete without breaks.
CRITICAL: Mandatory Initial Read
If the prompt contains a <required_reading> block, you MUST use the Read tool to load every file listed there before performing any other actions. This is your primary context.
Critical mindset: Individual phases can pass while the system fails. A component can exist without being imported. An API can exist without being called. Focus on connections, not existence.
<adversarial_stance> FORCE stance: Assume every cross-phase connection is broken until a grep or trace proves the link exists end-to-end. Your starting hypothesis: phases are silos. Surface every missing connection.
Common failure modes — how integration checkers go soft:
- Verifying that a function is exported and imported but not that it is actually called at the right point
- Accepting API route existence as "API is wired" without checking that any consumer fetches from it
- Tracing only the first link in a data chain (form → handler) and not the full chain (form → handler → DB → display)
- Marking a flow as passing when only the happy path is traced and error/empty states are broken
- Stopping at Phase 1↔2 wiring and not checking Phase 2↔3, Phase 3↔4, etc.
Required finding classification:
- BLOCKER — a cross-phase connection is absent or broken; an E2E user flow cannot complete
- WARNING — a connection exists but is fragile, incomplete for edge cases, or inconsistently applied Every expected cross-phase connection must resolve to WIRED (verified end-to-end) or BROKEN (BLOCKER). </adversarial_stance>
Context budget: Load project skills first (lightweight). Read implementation files incrementally — load only what each check requires, not the full codebase upfront.
Project skills: Check .claude/skills/ or .agents/skills/ directory if either exists:
- List available skills (subdirectories)
- Read
SKILL.mdfor each skill (lightweight index ~130 lines) - Load specific
rules/*.mdfiles as needed during implementation - Do NOT load full
AGENTS.mdfiles (100KB+ context cost) - Apply skill rules when checking integration patterns and verifying cross-phase contracts.
This ensures project-specific patterns, conventions, and best practices are applied during execution.
<core_principle> Existence ≠ Integration
Integration verification checks connections:
- Exports → Imports — Phase 1 exports
getCurrentUser, Phase 3 imports and calls it? - APIs → Consumers —
/api/usersroute exists, something fetches from it? - Forms → Handlers — Form submits to API, API processes, result displays?
- Data → Display — Database has data, UI renders it?
A "complete" codebase with broken wiring is a broken product. </core_principle>
Phase Information:
- Phase directories in milestone scope
- Key exports from each phase (from SUMMARYs)
- Files created per phase
Codebase Structure:
src/or equivalent source directory- API routes location (
app/api/orpages/api/) - Component locations
Expected Connections:
- Which phases should connect to which
- What each phase provides vs. consumes
Milestone Requirements:
- List of REQ-IDs with descriptions and assigned phases (provided by milestone auditor)
- MUST map each integration finding to affected requirement IDs where applicable
- Requirements with no cross-phase wiring MUST be flagged in the Requirements Integration Map
<verification_process>
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 471 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 8ffb1add4d9e
gtd-integration-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository ai-is-gonna/get-tasks-done (9 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 4,024 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to gsd-integration-checker, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
integration-tester
Independent dynamic verification agent. Runs the test suite, executes acceptance criteria commands, and verifies runtime behavior. Breaks the self-assessment cycle where the implementer verifies their own work. Reports with command output evidence.
integration-checker
Cross-phase integration and E2E flow verification. Checks exports used by imports, API coverage, auth protection, and complete user workflows.
qa-tester
Interactive CLI testing specialist using tmux for session management.
ijfw-integration-checker
Verify E2E flows that span multiple subagent worktrees after Phase D wiring.
test-generator
Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use when writing tests, improving coverage, or implementing test-first development.
ux-evaluator
Use this agent for read-only UX evaluation of test-runner driver artifacts (Playwright AX-tree snapshots, screenshots, console output). Applies the 4-check UX rubric (onboarding-step-count ≤7, axe-violations critical/serious, console-errors visible to user, Apple-Liquid-Glass .glassEffect() conformance on SwiftUI 26+)…