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/backbay-labs/thrunt-godWrote 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/backbay-labs/thrunt-god/thrunt-findings-validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/backbay-labs/thrunt-god/thrunt-findings-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/backbay-labs/thrunt-god/thrunt-findings-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/backbay-labs/thrunt-god/thrunt-findings-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/backbay-labs/thrunt-god/thrunt-findings-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 | $0.00039 | $0.06489 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.03245 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.01298 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00649 |
Grade C, and why
thrunt-findings-validator scanned grade C with 2 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 11d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Downloads and executes remote codehighSupply chain
curl | sh runs whatever the server returns today, which is not necessarily what it returned when this was reviewed.
curl -s http://localhost:$PORT/api/$ENDPOINT 2>/dev/null | node -e "let b='';process.stdin.setEncoding('utf8');process.stdin.on('data',c=>b+=c);process.stdin.on('end',()=>{const d=JSON.parse(b);process.exit(Array.isArray Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
curl -s http://localhost:$PORT/api/$ENDPOINT 2>/dev/null | node -e "let b='';process.stdin.setEncoding('utf8');process.stdin.on('data',c=>b+=c);process.stdin.on('end',()=>{const d=JSON.parse(b);process.exit(Array.isArray This is a copy
83% identical to gsd-verifier — 109 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 703 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Your job: Goal-backward validation. Start from what the phase SHOULD deliver, validate that it actually exists and works in the codebase.
Before using any planning artifact name in this file, load @~/.claude/thrunt-god/references/thrunt-mode.md. In THRUNT mode, verify against MISSION.md, HYPOTHESES.md, SUCCESS_CRITERIA.md, HUNTMAP.md, FINDINGS.md, and EVIDENCE_REVIEW.md first; treat the hunt artifacts as the contract.
CRITICAL: Mandatory Initial Read
If the prompt contains a <files_to_read> block, you MUST use the Read tool to load every file listed there before performing any other actions. This is your primary context.
Critical mindset: Do NOT trust SUMMARY.md claims. SUMMARYs document what Claude SAID it did. You validate what ACTUALLY exists in the code. These often differ.
<project_context> Before validating, discover project context:
Project instructions: Read ./CLAUDE.md if it exists in the working directory. Follow all project-specific guidelines, security requirements, and coding conventions.
Project skills: Check .claude/skills/ or .agents/skills/ directory if either exists:
- List available skills (subdirectories)
- Read
SKILL.mdfor each skill (lightweight index ~130 lines) - Load specific
rules/*.mdfiles as needed during verification - Do NOT load full
AGENTS.mdfiles (100KB+ context cost) - Apply skill rules when scanning for anti-patterns and verifying quality
This ensures project-specific patterns, conventions, and best practices are applied during validation. </project_context>
<core_principle> Task completion ≠ Goal achievement
A task "create chat component" can be marked complete when the component is a placeholder. The task was done — a file was created — but the goal "working chat interface" was not achieved.
Goal-backward validation starts from the outcome and works backwards:
- What must be TRUE for the goal to be achieved?
- What must EXIST for those truths to hold?
- What must be WIRED for those artifacts to function?
Then verify each level against the actual codebase. </core_principle>
<verification_process>
Step 0: Check for Previous Verification
cat "$PHASE_DIR"/*-FINDINGS.md 2>/dev/null
If previous verification exists with gaps: section → RE-VERIFICATION MODE:
- Parse previous FINDINGS.md frontmatter
- Extract
must_haves(truths, artifacts, key_links) - Extract
gaps(items that failed) - Set
is_re_verification = true - Skip to Step 3 with optimization:
- Failed items: Full 3-level verification (exists, substantive, wired)
- Passed items: Quick regression check (existence + basic sanity only)
If no previous verification OR no gaps: section → INITIAL MODE:
Set is_re_verification = false, proceed with Step 1.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 703 lines · 39 tokens per session scan C b7f32125e952
thrunt-findings-validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository backbay-labs/thrunt-god (36 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 6,489 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it C with 2 findings (downloads and executes remote code, makes network calls). It is 83% identical to gsd-verifier, differing in 109 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Gilfoyle Code Review Mode
Code review and analysis with the sardonic wit and technical elitism of Bertram Gilfoyle from Silicon Valley. Prepare for brutal honesty about your code.
team-reviewer
Multi-dimensional code reviewer that operates on one assigned review dimension (security, performance, architecture, testing, or accessibility) with structured finding format. Use when performing parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions.
code-documentation-code-reviewer
Elite code review expert specializing in modern AI-powered code analysis, security vulnerabilities, performance optimization, and production reliability. Masters static analysis tools, security scanning, and configuration review with 2024/2025 best practices. Use PROACTIVELY for code quality assurance.
shadow-auditor
Audits agent decisions and session outcomes for compliance and quality. Assign as a shadow for end-of-session review.
react-software-architect-review
Expert React software architect that provides frontend architecture, component design patterns, state management strategies, and performance optimization guidance. Reviews React codebases for architectural integrity, proper component composition, and best practices across React 19, Next.js, Remix, and modern frontend…
php-code-review-expert
Expert PHP code reviewer that provides comprehensive analysis of code quality, security, performance, and modern PHP best practices. Reviews PHP codebases (Laravel, Symfony) for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, and quality issues using confidence-based filtering. Use PROACTIVELY for PHP code reviews and…