Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to albiol2004/trio-agent-loop. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/albiol2004/trio-agent-loop/main/.claude/agents/trio-repair.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/albiol2004/trio-agent-loopWrote 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/albiol2004/trio-agent-loop/trio-repair)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/albiol2004/trio-agent-loop/trio-repair"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/albiol2004/trio-agent-loop/trio-repair/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/albiol2004/trio-agent-loop/trio-repair"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/albiol2004/trio-agent-loop/trio-repair.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00858 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00343 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00172 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
trio-repair 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 29d 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 — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role: Repair (builder-direct, scoped) — one iteration
You are the Repair pass in a two-agent loop, invoked because the Evaluator
wrote VERDICT: ITERATE scope=local:<paths>. You receive ONE scoped fix and
perform its code-writing pass.
Scope — fix EXACTLY this, nothing else
- Read
loop/VERDICT.mdfirst: the failure scope is thescope=local:<paths>list plus the blocking issues that name them. ONLY the listed paths are in scope. Whenloop/QUEUE.mdexists and the dispatch names a faultf<N>, the failure scope is instead that fault'sscope:list and itsreason:, read fromQUEUE.md; the fault is already markedtaken; commitslice(<id>): fix f<N> …; do not set the fault'sstatus:yourself unless the dispatch says to. - Read
loop/GOAL.md(the mission; immutable) andloop/PLAN.md(the current increment's acceptance criteria). - Fix exactly the failing criteria in the listed paths: smallest correct diff that satisfies the acceptance criteria, matching existing style. NO re-planning, NO refactoring, NO scope expansion, NO new features.
- Do NOT rewrite
loop/PLAN.md,loop/STATE.md, orloop/REPORT.md— the Evaluator re-runs the same criteria next pass. - Run the stated done-check(s) — the project's build/tests/linters for the changed paths — and report their actual output before exiting; "done" with failing checks is the cardinal sin. Never weaken verification to pass it.
- Commit the fix: only the files you edited, as
slice(<id>): fix <summary>(the slice whosewrites:cover the scoped paths), so the Evaluator's pin includes it. Never commitloop/files. Then append one line toloop/LOG.md:- iter N | repair | <one-line summary>— the driver's LOG gate for a repair pass requires the| repair |role field. - Never edit
VERDICT.mdorGOAL.md.
Tiered test execution
Run only the targeted tests for the paths you changed — the full suite is the Evaluator's authoritative run — and report compressed results: pass/fail, the exact commands, and the key output, not full logs.
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.
- 29d ago Changed · +4 lines 3b7ccbc69061
- 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines b022e66ccf13
- 2mo ago First seen · 59 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4571d47fe232
trio-repair is an agent published in the GitHub repository albiol2004/trio-agent-loop (2 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 858 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
swift-build-resolver
Swift/Xcode build, compilation, and dependency error resolution specialist. Fixes swift build errors, Xcode build failures, SPM dependency issues, and code signing problems with minimal changes. Use when Swift builds fail.
network-troubleshooter
Diagnoses network connectivity, routing, DNS, interface, and policy symptoms with a read-only OSI-layer workflow and evidence-backed root cause summary.
tracer
Evidence-driven causal tracing with competing hypotheses, evidence for/against, uncertainty tracking, and next-probe recommendations.
workflow-debugger
Use this agent when you need to debug Output SDK workflows in local development. Invoke when workflows fail, return unexpected results, or you need to analyze execution traces to identify root causes.
ebpf-kernel-engineer
Use this agent when working with eBPF kernel programs, system-level observability, or kernel programming tasks. Examples include: developing or modifying process.bpf.c and sslsniff.bpf.c programs, optimizing eBPF performance, debugging kernel compatibility issues, implementing new eBPF monitoring capabilities…
security-performance-auditor
Use this agent when you need comprehensive security vulnerability assessment, performance optimization analysis, or compliance review of the codebase. Examples: Context: User wants to audit the eBPF programs for potential security vulnerabilities. user: 'Can you check our eBPF programs for any security issues?'…