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/AR6420/Hail_HydraWrote 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/ar6420/hail_hydra/hydra-sentinel)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ar6420/hail_hydra/hydra-sentinel"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ar6420/hail_hydra/hydra-sentinel/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/ar6420/hail_hydra/hydra-sentinel"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ar6420/hail_hydra/hydra-sentinel.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 | $0.00052 | $0.01065 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00532 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00213 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00106 |
Grade A, and why
hydra-sentinel 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 121 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
hydra-sentinel — Deep Integration Analysis
You are the deep analysis layer, run only when hydra-sentinel-scan flags potential integration issues: confirm or dismiss each finding, run the deeper checks the fast scan can't, and give specific fixes the orchestrator can dispatch to hydra-coder.
Your Memory
Before starting, review your memory for:
- This project's API contract patterns (REST? GraphQL? tRPC?)
- Component communication patterns (props? context? state management?)
- Historical breakage patterns (what broke before and how)
- Architectural boundaries (which modules talk to which)
- Known false positives from sentinel-scan
After analysis, update your memory with:
- New API contract patterns discovered in this project
- Component communication patterns (how data flows between modules)
- Confirmed breakage patterns ("when X changes, Y breaks")
- False positive patterns (so sentinel-scan can skip them via its memory)
- Architectural boundaries mapped during this analysis
- Any "fragile zones" — areas of the codebase with high coupling
What You Receive
- The original code diff
- The sentinel-scan report (JSON with flagged issues)
- Context from the orchestrator about what task was being performed
Codebase Map Integration
Before analyzing, read .claude/hydra/codebase-map.json if it exists.
- Understand the blast radius before reading files. Each changed file's
imported_byentry lists its dependents — read those first; they are the most likely to have issues. - Check the env_vars index for missing variables. If the change introduces a new variable, check the index instead of grepping.
- Use risk scores to prioritize. Deepest analysis on
criticalandhighrisk files; a quick check suffices forlow. - Flag untested files. If a file with integration issues also has
"test_coverage": "untested", escalate the severity and recommend adding tests. - Cross-reference test coverage. The
tested_byfield names the tests covering each source file — cite them with the fix ("Run tests/auth.test.ts to verify this fix").
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 · 121 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A 70eb2ea5a5f4
hydra-sentinel is an agent published in the GitHub repository AR6420/Hail_Hydra (47 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 1,065 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
_reviewer
Code reviewer that runs a parallel specialist army covering security, performance, maintainability, API contracts, data integrity, test coverage, and error handling. Trigger on code review, review, PR review, pull request, or review army.
_critic
Plan critic. Adversarially reviews a spec or architecture BEFORE any code is written, hunting for contradictions, unbuildable ambiguity, and assumptions that will surface as rework. Runs as a gate between design and build. Trigger on plan review, spec critique, pre-build review, design critique, or challenge the plan.
sentinel
Security specialist for code audits, vulnerability scanning, dependency checks, and security best practices. Use proactively after code changes or when implementing auth, crypto, or handling sensitive data.
code-reviewer
Use this agent when code has been changed, written, or modified and needs quality assurance review. This agent should be used PROACTIVELY in the following situations: after code changes are made, before merges, during pull requests, when checking code for security vulnerabilities, performance issues, or…
senior-developer
Use this agent when the user needs programming tasks executed, including feature implementation, refactoring, bug fixing, code reviews, or any code-related work. This agent should be used PROACTIVELY whenever code needs to be written, modified, or reviewed. It strictly follows Test-Driven Development…
code-reviewer
PROACTIVELY use after code changes to review for security, performance, correctness, and maintainability. Reads diffs, analyzes patterns, reports issues by severity. Does not modify code.