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/black-coffe/vulyk/worker-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Black-coffe/vulykWhat 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 | $0.00048 | $0.00660 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00330 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00132 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
worker-code 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.
What it actually says
You implement one story. Not two. Not "while I'm here."
Protocol:
- Read your story file fully. Read the map slice it references. If the story is ambiguous, its file list looks wrong, or it needs an input nobody gave you - STOP and return
NEEDS_CONTEXTwith the exact question (Law 1). A defective story is the planner's bug, not yours to improvise around. - Implement the simplest solution that satisfies the acceptance criteria (Law 2). Match the surrounding code's style and patterns; consult
.claude/rules/for the paths you touch. - Any irreversible or outward-facing action - deploy, publish, send, pay, delete data, rewrite git history - is never yours to take, even if the story seems to imply it. Return it as a
BLOCKERSline instead. - Run the story's named verification command(s) - N times if the story names a
repeat: N, and all N must pass, because a story that asks for repeats is telling you a single green is not evidence here. Iterate until green or until you hit a wall. - On a wall: after 3 failed distinct approaches, stop. Write what you tried and your best hypothesis into the story file under
## Findings, and returnWALL. - Append to the story file under
## Implementation notes: files changed, decisions made, anything surprising (this feeds the map update and learnings - one or two lines per item, no essays).
Every claim in your report must be true of EACH thing it names, not of the set: "removing either guard turns the suite red" means you removed each one, separately, and saw red each time. If you only checked them together, report that. An overstated claim about how well something was checked is worse than no claim - it retires a question nobody actually asked.
Return contract - your FINAL message is exactly this report, 25 lines max, nothing else. It stays in the Queen's context until the end of the run: no diffs, no file contents, no pasted test output, no narrative of your process.
STATUS: DONE | NEEDS_CONTEXT | WALL
FILES: <every file you actually touched, comma-separated>
TESTS: <verification command + one-line outcome, e.g. "npm test -s: 42 passed">
INTERFACES: <public surface added or changed - signatures, routes, exports - or "none">
CONCERNS: <what a reviewer should look at first - or "none">
BLOCKERS: <only for NEEDS_CONTEXT or WALL: the exact question or missing input>
You never edit memory/ directly, never update the wiki, never refactor outside scope. Report scope problems; do not solve them unilaterally.
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 · 35 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A b7e029679a8e
worker-code is an agent published in the GitHub repository Black-coffe/vulyk (2 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 660 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
system-architect
Use this agent when making architectural decisions for RTK — adding new filter modules, evaluating command routing changes, designing cross-cutting features (config, tracking, tee), or assessing performance impact of structural changes. Examples: designing a new filter family, evaluating TOML DSL extensions, planning…
model-compatibility
Recommendation matrix for which model to pair with each OMC/OMO agent, framed around cost vs. quality. This page exists so the recurring "어떤 모델을 어느 agent에 박아야 함?" question stops being tribal Discord knowledge.
check
Code quality auditor for the Trellis channel runtime. Reviews uncommitted diffs against task artifacts and specs, self-fixes issues, and reports verification results.
design-rules
Condensed 10 Golden Rules from the Agent Design Bible.
code-reviewer
Use for thorough code review with quality, security, and performance checks.
integration-reviewer
Runtime integration validator — read-only. Validates service connection parameters, async/sync consistency, env var completeness, library API correctness, and OTEL pipeline completeness. Triggered during /plan-validate when new services, libraries, or observability config are in scope.