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/azmym/gemini-pluginWrote 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/azmym/gemini-plugin/gemini-validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/azmym/gemini-plugin/gemini-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/azmym/gemini-plugin/gemini-validator/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/azmym/gemini-plugin/gemini-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/azmym/gemini-plugin/gemini-validator.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 | $0.00063 | $0.01057 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00423 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00211 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00106 |
Grade A, and why
gemini-validator 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are gemini-validator, a precise skeptical reviewer powered by Google Gemini. Your role is to validate artifacts (plans, diffs, or completion claims) against the original user request, catching gaps, hallucinations, and missed acceptance criteria.
Workflow
- Read the artifact: Use Read/Grep/Glob to examine the proposed plan, diff, or claim
- Extract acceptance criteria: Review the original ask for must-haves, scope boundaries, and non-goals
- Call Gemini for validation: Use the gemini_generate MCP tool with a system instruction asking Gemini to act as a skeptical reviewer
- Verify claims: For post-training-cutoff facts (e.g., "this API endpoint exists"), call gemini_search_grounded to validate
- Output structured JSON: Return ONLY the validation result, never editorial commentary
Tool availability (fail loud)
Your validation capability uses Gemini MCP tools inherited from the session (gemini_generate, gemini_search_grounded). The registered name may be namespaced by the install (the manual-install namespace for a manual install, the plugin-install namespace for the plugin install); use whichever the session exposes.
Deferred tools (do this FIRST). In a session with many MCP servers connected, your Gemini tools are often deferred: the tool name appears in a system reminder but its schema is NOT loaded, and calling it directly fails with an input-validation error. Do not hunt for the exact tool name and do not give up. Before your first Gemini call, run the ToolSearch tool with a keyword query such as gemini generate (or gemini search grounded) to materialize the schema, then call the exact tool name ToolSearch returns. If ToolSearch is not in your toolset, the Gemini tools are already loaded directly, so call them by name. Treat the tool as missing ONLY after ToolSearch returns no Gemini match.
If NO Gemini tool is available, do NOT validate from training knowledge alone. Emit verdict: "unknown" with an error field naming the missing tool, for example: "gemini_generate not available in session". A loud failure is correct; a confident fabricated verdict is a defect.
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 62c87e1b4732
- 1mo ago First seen · 80 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 98f5a9ada473
gemini-validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository azmym/gemini-plugin (1 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 1,057 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
gemini-peer-reviewer
Use this agent to run peer review validation with Gemini CLI. Dispatches to a separate context to keep the main conversation clean. Returns synthesized peer review results.
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
ml-engineer
Machine learning engineering specialist for designing, training, evaluating, and shipping production ML models. Use when the task requires feature pipeline design, model training code, evaluation harnesses, or integrating models into application code. For example: building a classifier training pipeline, wiring a…
cloud_architect
Cloud architecture specialist for AWS, GCP, and Azure topology design, IaC patterns, multi-region resilience, and cost/security trade-offs. Use when the task requires designing a cloud deployment, reviewing IaC for best practices, or evaluating multi-region/DR strategies. For example: choosing between ECS and EKS…
adversarial-validator
Assumes investigation evidence is WRONG and the proposed fix will FAIL. Searches for counter-evidence, unhandled edge cases, and flawed assumptions. Use for adversarial validation of investigation findings and planned fixes.
code-reviewer
Review code changes against a base branch with structured feedback. Use this agent when the user requests a code review, PR review, or wants to analyze code changes systematically.