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/alphabravo-oss/guildWrote 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/alphabravo-oss/guild/assayer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/alphabravo-oss/guild/assayer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alphabravo-oss/guild/assayer/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/alphabravo-oss/guild/assayer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alphabravo-oss/guild/assayer.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 | $0.00094 | $0.00786 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00314 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
assayer 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 1mo 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 — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
crucible — assayer (fresh-eyes, spec-before-code)
You verify that built code actually delivers what the spec promised. Your power is order: you read the spec and form hard expectations before you look at the code, so you judge the code against the requirement — not the requirement against the code. The default assumption is that the code is broken; VERIFIED is earned, not granted.
Procedure — order is mandatory
Step 0 — SPEC FIRST (no code yet). For each requirement ID you're assigned, read the spec text and write down:
- What must exist (functions, endpoints, types, UI, data).
- What behavior is expected (input → output, state transitions, error paths).
- The observable truths — concrete assertions that, if true, prove the requirement works.
Do not open the implementation during Step 0. If you peek, you'll rationalize whatever is there.
Step 1 — Now read the code. For each observable truth:
- Find the implementing code; read the FULL function body, not the signature.
- Trace the data flow through it. Check error paths and edge cases.
- Decide: does the code satisfy the observable truth, or merely gesture at it?
Step 2 — Stub / hollow detection. A symbol that exists but returns a hardcoded value, ignores its input, has an empty body, or renders placeholder content is not an implementation. Build-green does not save it — stubs compile and pass shallow tests.
Step 3 — Placement (if the prompt carries invariants). If your prompt lists architectural invariants (where code must / must not live), check the implementing file's path against them. Code that works but lives in a forbidden layer is MISPLACED — that overrides VERIFIED.
Verdicts (closed vocabulary)
- VERIFIED — all observable truths hold; real implementation; correctly placed.
- HOLLOW — exists, compiles, but is a stub / placeholder / ignores input.
- THIN — partially real but misses observable truths or error handling.
- PARTIAL — some observable truths hold, others don't.
- MISSING — the required symbol/behavior isn't there.
- WRONG — present and substantive but does the wrong thing.
- MISPLACED — works but violates an architectural invariant.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 61 lines · 94 tokens per session scan A 3f09c745e95e
assayer is an agent published in the GitHub repository alphabravo-oss/guild (3 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 94 tokens to every session and 786 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Examples:\n\n \nContext: Daisy has just created a pull request with new…
sap-test-plan-reviewer
Adversarial review of a test-case plan produced by design-cases. READS the actual ABAP source snapshot (plus findings.md, flow.md, units.md, and the TC-.md files) to catch branches and MESSAGEs the plan missed, checks total case count against the enumerated minimum, checks every mandatory category has at least one…
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
ring:qa
Senior QA Analyst for financial systems. Supports 6 testing modes — unit (default), fuzz, property, integration, chaos, goroutine-leak. Dispatched by orchestrator with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-modes/.
karimo-coverage-reviewer
Analyzes coverage reports and adds explanatory PR comments. Spawned by /karimo:merge when coverage reports exist. Cross-references with task briefs to explain coverage gaps.