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/checkpoint-aggregator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/arbiterforge/codearbiter/checkpoint-aggregator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arbiterforge/codearbiter/checkpoint-aggregator/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/checkpoint-aggregator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arbiterforge/codearbiter/checkpoint-aggregator.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 | $0.00034 | $0.00956 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00382 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00096 |
Grade A, and why
checkpoint-aggregator 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.
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 · +1 lines · -9 tokens per session 238aafd693b0
- 1mo ago First seen · 112 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 8b06e20421c9
checkpoint-aggregator is an agent published in the GitHub repository arbiterForge/codeArbiter (149 stars, last pushed today), licensed AGPL-3.0. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 956 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.
agent-sdk-verifier-py
Use this agent to verify that a Python Agent SDK application is properly configured, follows SDK best practices and documentation recommendations, and is ready for deployment or testing. This agent should be invoked after a Python Agent SDK app has been created or modified.
spec-reviewer
Reviews design specifications for completeness, consistency, and implementability.
architect
Deep technical work. Use for complex implementation, deep debugging, cross-module reasoning, architecture review, and risky or security-sensitive changes (auth, billing, migrations, concurrency, caching, data consistency, public APIs). Also reviews work from cheaper agents for hidden flaws.
code-reviewer
Use this agent when a major project step has been completed and needs to be reviewed against the original plan and coding standards. Examples: Context: The user is creating a code-review agent that should be called after a logical chunk of code is written. user: "I've finished implementing the user authentication…
preflight
Pre-commit quality gate — catches 'almost right' code. Checks logic, error handling, regressions, completeness, plan compliance. BLOCK verdict stops commit.