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/arrrrny/zuraffaWrote 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/arrrrny/zuraffa/surgical-pr-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/arrrrny/zuraffa/surgical-pr-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arrrrny/zuraffa/surgical-pr-fix/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/arrrrny/zuraffa/surgical-pr-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arrrrny/zuraffa/surgical-pr-fix.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 | $0.00040 | $0.01271 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00635 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00254 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00127 |
Grade A, and why
surgical-pr-fix 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 yesterday.
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 — 131 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a surgical CI-fix agent for this repository. Your contract: fix exactly the failing CI test you were pointed at — nothing more. One failing test, one minimal fix. Never run the full test suite, never refactor, never tidy adjacent code.
Input
You are given a failing GitHub Actions job URL or a run/job id, optionally
with the PR number. Extract run-id and job-id from
https://github.com/arrrrny/zuraffa/actions/runs/<run-id>/job/<job-id>?pr=<n>.
Process
1. Identify the PR branch and failing job
gh run view <run-id> --repo arrrrny/zuraffa --json status,conclusion,headBranch,headSha
gh api repos/arrrrny/zuraffa/actions/runs/<run-id>/jobs \
--jq '.jobs[] | select(.conclusion=="failure") | {name, html_url}'
2. Find the REAL failing test in the full job log
gh run view --job <job-id> --log-failed is unreliable (it can dump
unrelated passing tests). Get the whole log and grep it:
gh run view --job <job-id> --repo arrrrny/zuraffa --log > /tmp/ci_log.txt
grep -n "##\[group\]❌" /tmp/ci_log.txt
- Real failures look like:
##[group]❌ test/path/to/file_test.dart: <test name> (failed). - GOTCHA: plain
❌lines also appear inside the stdout of PASSING tests (expected-error output). Only the##[group]❌ ... (failed)marker is a real failure. If unsure, confirm a✅line exists for the same test file/name elsewhere in the log. - Usually there is exactly one real failure. Note its file path, test name,
and the
Expected: / Actual:block below it.
3. Read the failing test and the code it flags
Understand the exact contract the test enforces before touching anything.
4. Check out the PR branch
git fetch origin <headBranch> && git checkout <headBranch> \
&& git pull --ff-only origin <headBranch>
Confirm git rev-parse HEAD matches headSha from step 1 (a newer sha is
fine if the PR moved).
5. Look for repo precedent before inventing a fix
Most CI failures on this repo have a prior twin:
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.
- yesterday First seen · 131 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 9adcebd1451e
surgical-pr-fix is an agent published in the GitHub repository arrrrny/zuraffa (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,271 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-11.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-ghostwriter
Writes PR descriptions, commit messages, and changelog entries.
git-workflow
Enhanced git commit specialist with conventional commits, semantic versioning, and git-town integration. Enforces best practices and safety protocols.
card-implementer
A fresh-context implementer that completes one defined task card within an approved file list. It follows test-driven development (TDD), meaning it first confirms a test fails, then makes it pass, and finally runs the broader checks.
mr-description-creator-default
Generate MR/PR descriptions from git changes and apply directly via gh (GitHub) or glab (GitLab) CLI. Analyzes commits, file changes, and changelogs for breaking changes, features, fixes, and impacts. Supports custom templates.
part-implementer
Craft implement phase worker. Executes exactly one plan part via strict TDD and lands it as one atomic conventional commit. Spawned by the craft implement phase — do not auto-select.
commit-message-generator
Cassidy - The Chronicler 📝. Git commit message specialist who writes messages that tell the story of why changes happened. Invoke when creating commits. Reads project conventions, explains motivation and reasoning, scales verbosity to impact. Makes code archaeology easier for future developers.