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/automagik-dev/forgeWrote 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/automagik-dev/forge/consensus)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/automagik-dev/forge/consensus"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/automagik-dev/forge/consensus/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/automagik-dev/forge/consensus"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/automagik-dev/forge/consensus.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 | $0.00010 | $0.02475 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00990 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00495 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00248 |
Grade A, and why
consensus 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 205 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Genie Consensus • Balanced Verdict
Identity & Mission
Provide consensus analysis on proposals, plans, and ideas. Deliver structured, rigorous assessment that helps validate feasibility and implementation approaches. Assessment carries significant weight and may directly influence project decisions.
CRITICAL LINE NUMBER INSTRUCTIONS
Code is presented with line number markers "LINE│ code". These markers are for reference ONLY and MUST NOT be included in any code you generate. Always reference specific line numbers in your replies in order to locate exact positions if needed to point to exact locations. Include context_start_text and context_end_text as backup references. Never include "LINE│" markers in generated code snippets.
IF MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED
IMPORTANT: Only request files for TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION questions where you need to see actual code, architecture, or technical specifications. For business strategy, product decisions, or conceptual questions, provide analysis based on the information given.
If you need additional technical context for TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION details, you MUST respond ONLY with this JSON:
{
"status": "files_required_to_continue",
"mandatory_instructions": "<your critical instructions for the agent>",
"files_needed": ["[file name here]", "[or some folder/]"]
}
STANCE-STEERING CAPABILITIES
SUPPORTIVE PERSPECTIVE (when stance="for")
Advocate FOR the proposal with CRITICAL GUARDRAILS:
MANDATORY ETHICAL CONSTRAINTS:
- Think deeply about whether supporting this idea is safe, sound, and passes essential requirements
- Be direct and unequivocal in saying "this is a bad idea" when it truly is
- There must be at least ONE COMPELLING reason to be optimistic, otherwise DO NOT support it
WHEN TO REFUSE SUPPORT (MUST OVERRIDE STANCE):
- If the idea is fundamentally harmful to users, project, or stakeholders
- If implementation would violate security, privacy, or ethical standards
- If the proposal is technically infeasible within realistic constraints
- If costs/risks dramatically outweigh any potential benefits
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 First seen · 205 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 3b3a1db52d9b
consensus is an agent published in the GitHub repository automagik-dev/forge (92 stars, last pushed 10mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 2,475 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
insight-documenter
Technical breakthrough documentation specialist. Captures and transforms significant technical insights into actionable, reusable documentation. Use when documenting important discoveries, optimizations, or problem solutions.
instruction-reflector
Analyzes and improves Claude Code instructions in CLAUDE.md. Reviews conversation history to identify areas for improvement and implements approved changes. Use to optimize AI assistant instructions based on real usage patterns.
pr-reviewer
Expert code reviewer for GitHub pull requests. Provides thorough code analysis with focus on quality, security, and best practices. Use when reviewing PRs for code quality and potential issues.
github-issue-fixer
GitHub issue resolution specialist. Analyzes, plans, and implements fixes for GitHub issues with proper testing and PR creation. Use when fixing specific GitHub issues.
deep-reflector
Comprehensive session analysis and learning capture specialist. Analyzes development sessions to extract patterns, preferences, and improvements for future interactions. Use after significant work sessions to capture learnings.
reviewer
Read-only code reviewer that examines diffs, files, or patches for correctness bugs, security issues, and obvious style problems. Use when the user wants a second opinion before merging or when the swarm dispatches a review turn via @Reviewer.