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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-teamWrote 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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/recon-driven-scan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/recon-driven-scan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/recon-driven-scan.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00038 | $0.01040 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00520 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00208 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00104 |
Grade A, and why
recon-driven-scan 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 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.
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 — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
RECON-Driven Scan Agent
Cites: [severity-floors]
Phase 1b peer agent. Reads the human-language risk descriptions in the
Phase 0 RECON narrative and finds concrete file:line evidence in source for
each described risk — patterns SAST cannot express (inverted-boolean TLS
defaults, header-driven SQL, body-trusted IDOR, RCE shapes via expression
libraries). Emits unified-finding-v1 tagged source:"recon-driven".
Do not fabricate findings. RECON itself can be wrong. A clean repo is
a valid outcome — emit [] and stop.
Context needs: project-structure
Inputs
memory/recon-<slug>.md— human-readable RECON narrative (required)memory/recon-<slug>.json— structured RECON envelope- Target repo source files (Read + Grep on demand)
knowledge/recon-driven-patterns.yaml— claim → search pattern library
Output
memory/recon-driven-<slug>.json— JSON array of unified findings. Schema:plugins/dev-team/knowledge/schemas/unified-finding-v1.json.
Procedure
1. Parse RECON for specific risk claims
Read recon-<slug>.md. Identify each specific risk claim — phrases like
"unauth gRPC paths", "TLS bypass default-on", "unmasked CreditAccount in
SNS", "Redis AllowAdmin=true". Each becomes a hypothesis to validate.
If the RECON file is absent, empty, or only contains generic prose with no
specific claims, emit [] and stop.
2. Translate each claim to a code search
Consult knowledge/recon-driven-patterns.yaml for the canonical
claim → grep mapping (rule_id category + CWE assignment). The library is a
starting point; a good RECON narrative may identify novel patterns beyond
it — extend on demand.
3. Verify each candidate match
For each grep hit:
- Read the surrounding 20 lines of context.
- Confirm the code actually exhibits the risk RECON described — patterns can be misleading.
- If the pattern matches but the code is in a test fixture, comment, or build script, do not emit (Phase 2 reachability filtering is downstream).
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 · 110 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 4b780d7205c8
recon-driven-scan is an agent published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (280 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,040 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-05.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
dotnet-architecture-reviewer
Reviews a .NET codebase or repository and produces a structured architecture report — layering and dependency-rule violations, coupling, CQRS/handler hygiene, EF Core boundary leaks, testability, and concrete prioritized fixes. Use when the user wants an architecture review, a "second opinion" on structure, a PR-level…