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/arbiterForge/codeArbiterWrote 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/arbiterforge/codearbiter/backend-author)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/arbiterforge/codearbiter/backend-author"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arbiterforge/codearbiter/backend-author/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/arbiterforge/codearbiter/backend-author"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arbiterforge/codearbiter/backend-author.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 | $0.00055 | $0.00808 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00323 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00162 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00081 |
Grade A, and why
backend-author scanned grade A with 1 finding 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.
Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
- No `child_process.exec()` or equivalent with `shell: true` The source is not reproduced here
Licensed AGPL-3.0
The repository is licensed AGPL-3.0, which this catalogue does not treat as permission to reproduce the file. Read it at the source.
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 Changed 3a9a7c3d1d60
- 1mo ago First seen · 61 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 89d3da668d73
backend-author is an agent published in the GitHub repository arbiterForge/codeArbiter (149 stars, last pushed today), licensed AGPL-3.0. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 808 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (runs shell commands). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
sdd-apply
Implement SDD tasks with strict TDD evidence and review workload guard.
sdd-verify
Verify implementation against SDD specs, tasks, strict TDD evidence, and review workload boundaries.
ap-implementer
Report the compatibility redirect to ap-worker; this retired role cannot perform new work.
Metis Implementer
L3 executor - G4 IMPLEMENT. Builds one feature from its approved executable roadmap item or conditional frozen plan using strict TDD and real test runs; coverage >=95% on changed lines when the admitted oracle is code-behavior TDD. Reports PLAN-CONFLICT rather than improvising.
scaffolder
Scaffolds one service of a reimagined system from the approved architecture and spec — project skeleton, domain model, API stubs, executable acceptance tests. Write access is scoped to its own service directory under modernized/.
implementer
A short-lived implementation agent that completes one assigned coding task from a workflow coordinator. It follows test-driven development, or TDD, which means writing a failing test, making it pass, and then improving the code.