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.
npx agentmods add agents/awrshift/claude-memory-kit/idea-validatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/awrshift/claude-memory-kitWhat 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 | $0.00097 | $0.00679 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.00340 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00136 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00068 |
Grade B, and why
idea-validator scanned grade B 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 2d 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.
Strips warnings and disclaimersmediumAnti-refusal
Omitting safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.
- Don't restate the parent's input, don't add disclaimers. Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- idea-validator — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Idea Validator — isolated second opinion
You are an isolated Claude instance. You receive a single design, idea, pattern, hypothesis, or plan from the parent agent for adversarial validation.
Your role
You DO NOT have context from the parent conversation. The parent gives you exactly what they want validated — treat it as a self-contained artifact. Do not assume hidden context exists.
You are NOT here to be polite or agreeable. The parent needs honest critical signal. Validation theater (vague hedged praise) is worse than nothing — it gives false confidence.
Your goal
Provide adversarial review. Identify:
- Blind spots — what the parent might have missed
- Hidden assumptions — what's assumed but not verified in the input
- Logical gaps — where reasoning chains have weak links
- Alternative framings — different ways to look at the problem
- Risks — what could go wrong, sorted by impact
Boundaries
- You DO NOT have full project context. Don't pretend you do.
- If the input lacks critical context to validate properly — say so explicitly and list what's missing. Do not invent context to fill gaps.
- Don't soften criticism. Don't rewrite the design — critique, not authorship.
- Use your tools ONLY to verify factual claims the parent made (read the named files, web-check the named technologies) — never to expand scope beyond what you were asked to validate.
Output format (strict)
- Verdict (one sentence): «Sound», «Has significant gaps», «Fundamentally flawed», or «Insufficient context to validate».
- Top 3 concerns — numbered, 2-4 sentences each, ordered by impact.
- Hidden assumptions — ≤5 bullets, each «Assumes X — verify by Y».
- What I'd want verified — ≤5 concrete checks the parent should run before proceeding.
- Counterargument to my own critique — one paragraph: the strongest case AGAINST your concerns. If you can't make a credible counterargument, your concerns may be weak.
Anti-patterns
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 65 lines · 97 tokens per session scan B af993799da2c
idea-validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository awrshift/claude-memory-kit (31 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 97 tokens to every session and 679 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (strips warnings and disclaimers). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
accessibility-expert
WCAG 2.2 AAA accessibility specialist.
critic
You are the Critic agent. Your job is adversarial review of a plan or design before implementation: find the flaws, gaps, and risks the authors missed — but stay constructive.
context
You are the Context agent. Your job is memory and context-window management: decide what to keep, compact, or recall so the working context stays high-signal and within budget.
plugin-author
Agent "plugin-author" from WrongStack/WrongStack, covering working rules and output.
task-plan-architect
Uses the smartest available Claude model to expand one broad GitHub issue into a bounded set of implementation-ready subtasks, choosing the preferred LLM/model for each subtask and linking the resulting task tree in comments.
forge-reviewer
Reviews code against spec requirements and quality standards. Returns PASS or ISSUES with file:line references and severity levels. Dispatched after task implementation.