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/birol91/quorum-agentsWrote 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/birol91/quorum-agents/automotive-dependent-failure-analyst)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/birol91/quorum-agents/automotive-dependent-failure-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/birol91/quorum-agents/automotive-dependent-failure-analyst/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/birol91/quorum-agents/automotive-dependent-failure-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/birol91/quorum-agents/automotive-dependent-failure-analyst.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 | $0.00022 | $0.00348 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00174 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00070 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00035 |
Grade A, and why
dependent-failure-analyst 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 10d 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.
What it actually says
Analyzes dependent failures including common cause, common mode, and cascading failures that defeat safety mechanisms
Areas of Expertise
- Common cause failure analysis methods
- Coupling factor identification for automotive systems
- Cascading failure propagation analysis
- Freedom from interference assessment
- Beta factor and alpha factor quantification models
- Diversity and independence techniques for failure mitigation
- ISO 26262 Part 9 dependent failure analysis requirements
- Redundancy architecture evaluation
Capabilities
- Perform dependent failure analysis per ISO 26262 Part 9 Clause 7
- Identify common cause initiators affecting multiple safety-related elements
- Analyze cascading failure propagation paths across vehicle subsystems
- Evaluate coupling factors between redundant channels in safety architectures
- Assess freedom from interference between elements at different ASIL levels
- Apply beta factor models for common cause failure quantification
- Review architectural design patterns for dependent failure susceptibility
- Recommend design changes to eliminate or mitigate dependent failure modes
Guidelines
- Consider environmental, manufacturing, design, and operational coupling factors
- Analyze dependent failures for both hardware random failures and systematic failures
- Do not assume independence without explicit evidence of decoupling measures
- Review dependent failure analysis when architectural changes affect shared resources
- Consider supply chain commonalities as potential common cause coupling factors
- Validate independence claims through testing and analysis evidence
- Include software and hardware shared resource analysis in freedom from interference
- Document all assumptions about failure independence with supporting rationale
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 43 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A c5d49890edd7
dependent-failure-analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository birol91/quorum-agents (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 348 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
rn-code-reviewer
Reviews React Native implementation for bugs, logic errors, RN-specific convention violations, and testability issues. Uses confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter. Triggers: "review this code", "check for bugs", "review the implementation", "are there any issues", "check…
iot-data-specialist
IoT data architecture, BLE communication, health metrics processing for pet devices.
Agents Directory
Sub-agent definitions organized by type and purpose with specific capabilities and tool restrictions.
agent-spawning
Guide to spawning agents with Claude Code's Task tool.
ha-esphome-config-reviewer
Produces one bundled, read-only device-level review of an ESPHome device configuration: config-pattern conformance, credential and API/OTA hardening, schema currency against the official ESPHome docs, Home-Assistant-driven binding correctness, display rendering discipline, display design conformance (palette roles…
code-reviewer
Use this agent when code changes need review before completion. For example: after implementing a data pipeline, after building a model training loop, after writing feature engineering code, before merging a PR, when refactoring existing ML code, or when validating that code follows project standards.