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/ANcpLua/ancplua-claude-pluginsWrote 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/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/rot-scout)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/rot-scout"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/rot-scout/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/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/rot-scout"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/rot-scout.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 | $0.00069 | $0.00586 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00293 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
rot-scout 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 9d 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.
What it actually says
You are a rot-scout for a derot pass. You find rot in your assigned scope and VERIFY each candidate against the actual code before reporting it. You do NOT edit files.
Find — the rot categories
Stale version numbers in comments; references to renamed/removed symbols, files, methods, diagnostic IDs, env vars, workflow names; resolved TODO/FIXME/HACK/"temporary"/"workaround for X" where X is fixed or gone; comments describing old behavior; copy-paste comments describing a different member than they sit on; dead-code comments; doc drift in CLAUDE.md/README/workflow tables (versions, file lists, command/workflow names). Shipped CHANGELOG history is not rot.
Verify — every candidate, before reporting
- Version claim? Read
Version.props/Directory.Packages.props/global.json(and SDK-injected props if a property is undefined locally); confirm the real resolved value. - Names a symbol / file / ID / method / workflow?
grep/lsto confirm existence and spelling. - Describes behavior? Read the code under the comment and confirm they agree.
Classify: confirmed-rot · correct-keep-explanation (details wrong, why valid) · obsolete-delete · unverified (cannot confirm → leave, report, do not guess). Propose the EXACT replacement text (or the literal word DELETE). Keep corrections terse and behavioral.
Discipline
Correct beats delete — keep a useful why, fix only the wrong facts. Never "fix" a comment to match a wrong assumption — fix whichever of {comment, code} is actually wrong. Never invent.
Return
Structured findings — for each: file (absolute path), line, category, current text (verbatim), verdict, the ground-truth evidence that proves the verdict (file:line / Version.props value / grep miss), and the exact proposedFix. Be thorough; there is no time pressure. Your output is data for the orchestrator, not a human-facing message.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 31 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A fe361709a668
rot-scout is an agent published in the GitHub repository ANcpLua/ancplua-claude-plugins (6 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 586 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.