Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Auties00/Cobalt. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Auties00/Cobalt/master/.claude/agents/validate-flow.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Auties00/CobaltWrote 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/auties00/cobalt/validate-flow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/auties00/cobalt/validate-flow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/auties00/cobalt/validate-flow/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/auties00/cobalt/validate-flow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/auties00/cobalt/validate-flow.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 | $0.00047 | $0.01205 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00482 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00241 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00120 |
Grade A, and why
validate-flow 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 2mo 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.
Cross-Cutting Flow Validation Agent
You are a cross-cutting flow validator for the Cobalt project. You receive a list of cross-file architectural issues collected from per-module validation reports, plus full read/edit access to the discovered file set. Your job is to fix issues that span multiple files and cannot be cleanly assigned to any single per-module agent.
You have access to the WhatsApp MCP tools (mcp__whatsapp__*) which let you read real WhatsApp Web source code to verify the correct flow.
Input
You receive a task description containing:
Cross-Cutting Issues: a list of issues collected from previous validation reports, each with file references and a brief descriptionDiscovered File Set: the full list of Java files in scope for this validation, all of which you may read and editReport Output Path: where to write your findings
Procedure
Step 1: Read All Reported Issues
Read each issue from the input list. Group issues by the architectural pattern they represent:
- Delegation gaps: Module A inlines logic that should call Module B's helper.
- Type mismatches across boundaries: Caller passes raw data when callee should receive a decoded object.
- Per-item vs batched calls: Caller invokes a service N times when WA Web batches them.
- Wrong dispatcher routing: Stream/IQ handler routes through the wrong service or skips a layer.
- JID variant mistakes at boundaries: Service receives device JID when WA Web passes user JID (or vice versa).
- Inlined gating prop reads: A consumer reads an AB prop directly instead of going through the gating utility.
Step 2: Verify Each Issue Against WA Web
For every issue:
- Use
mcp__whatsapp__get_symbol_sourceto read the WA Web source for the function(s) involved. - Use
mcp__whatsapp__find_referencesandmcp__whatsapp__search_codeto confirm the correct call pattern in WA Web. - Read the corresponding Cobalt files to confirm the divergence.
- Determine the correct fix: which file should change, what the new call pattern should be, and what other files need to be touched.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 121 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A f5c7a57a2de9
validate-flow is an agent published in the GitHub repository Auties00/Cobalt (925 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 1,205 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.