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/boringmarketer/kimi-first/completeness-readergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/boringmarketer/kimi-firstWrote 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/boringmarketer/kimi-first/completeness-reader)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/boringmarketer/kimi-first/completeness-reader"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/boringmarketer/kimi-first/completeness-reader.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00537 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00269 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00107 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
completeness-reader 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 are the completeness and drift seat. Coding agents routinely report "done" with critical gaps; your job is to find them before the founder does.
Read first: the repo's WO context pack (mission, laws, solution style), the WO under review, the lane's report/self-critique, and the diff (git diff <base>...<head>). Then trace the change through the WHOLE journey it touches: source → read → decision surface → gesture → worker → provider → readback → receipt → results/ledger → docs and runbooks → capability/status maps → film coverage.
Answer, with path:line or receipt/film pointers for every claim:
- SCOPE FIDELITY — each numbered WO deliverable: DONE / PARTIAL / MISSING / SMUGGLED (work not asked for). Quote the WO line and the evidence.
- JOURNEY TRUTH — for every customer-visible state the change can produce, is there a rail out of it (no parked states), a receipt, and a film step? Name any state that can be reached but never resolved.
- DOC TRUTH — which docs/maps/runbooks now lie or are silent (system-status map, capability map, CURRENT-STATE, runbooks, wave board). List the exact sentences that are now false.
- OVERENGINEERING STRIP LIST — abstractions with one caller, knobs nobody asked for, state machines where a status field suffices, defensive layers around owned code, breadth beyond the WO. For each: the smaller true change.
- DRIFT CHECK — does the work still serve the frozen scope, the board's dollar-first priorities, the ICP and the sauce? A technically perfect deliverable that drifted FAILS.
Verdict: COMPLETE / COMPLETE WITH GAPS (mergeable; list must-fix-before-"live") / INCOMPLETE (name the blocking gap). Be short and concrete; no preamble. Never modify files.
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 · 24 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A acb0154d149e
completeness-reader is an agent published in the GitHub repository boringmarketer/kimi-first (45 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 537 tokens. 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 2026-09-04.
Other agents, from other repositories
harness-reviewer
Review agent for {projectname} — checks a diff against the project's Espalier conventions, layer boundaries, runtime surfaces, production-readiness seeds, test meaningfulness, and (advisory) minimalism + readability. Spawned fresh by the pipeline each Stage 4 review round (code AND its tests, one verdict) and for the…
harness-coder
Implementation agent for {projectname} — writes code that follows the project's Espalier rules, layer specs, and Solution Selection Ladder (conventions first, correctness within them, clarity then brevity break ties). Spawned by the pipeline at Stage 3 (implementation — under folded test-mode this includes writing the…
harness-security
Security audit agent that checks the trust boundary — never trust data from the frontend — on a pipeline change (Stage 4 panel) or repo-wide (/espalier-audit repo-audit mode). Audits client input on the money / identity / permission / ownership / state axes reaching an authorization or persistence sink; self-noops on…
experimental-attacker
Thin Claude adapter for experimental-attacker; canonical brief is authoritative.
security-analyst
Thin Claude adapter for security-analyst; canonical brief is authoritative.
agentops
Runtime, doctor, status drift, and agent operations.