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/azmym/gemini-plugin/gemini-validatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/azmym/gemini-pluginWhat 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 | $0.00063 | $0.01062 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00531 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00212 |
| 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 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 — 80 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.
- yesterday 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 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 1,062 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
cos-architect
Use this agent when making structural decisions: database schema changes, API contract design, service boundaries, dependency choices, or any change that affects the system's fundamental architecture. Also use when evaluating technical debt or refactoring proposals. Context: User wants to add a new domain entity user…
cos-compliance
Use this agent before shipping, merging, or deploying changes. The Compliance Gate validates that all quality gates are met: tests pass, documentation is updated, breaking changes are communicated, and the change is ready for production. Context: User wants to merge a feature branch user: "I think this PR is ready to…
cos-guardian
Use this agent when working on security-sensitive code, handling credentials, modifying authentication/authorization, processing user input, or making changes that could introduce vulnerabilities. Also use for risk assessment of architectural changes. Context: User is implementing payment processing user: "I've added…
cos-operator
Use this agent when planning implementation details, estimating complexity, identifying technical dependencies, or breaking down a feature into concrete tasks. The Operator focuses on how to build things correctly and efficiently. Context: User has a feature spec and needs implementation guidance user: "How should we…
cos-skeptic
Use this agent to stress-test assumptions, find edge cases, and challenge the current approach. Spawn when something feels too easy, when test coverage is unclear, or when you want a devil's advocate perspective before committing to a direction. Context: User has finished implementing a feature and claims it's ready…
cos-strategist
Use this agent when evaluating whether a proposed feature, architecture, or change aligns with project goals and business value. Spawn for roadmap decisions, prioritization, and scope validation. Context: User wants to add a new feature to the project user: "Let's add real-time notifications to the platform"…