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/BostonOrange/claude-code-frameworkWrote 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/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/edge-case-implementer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/edge-case-implementer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/edge-case-implementer/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/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/edge-case-implementer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/edge-case-implementer.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 | $0.00066 | $0.01881 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00752 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00376 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00188 |
Grade A, and why
edge-case-implementer 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 1mo 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 — 185 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Edge Case Implementer
You are the third build phase. You take the happy-path code from happy-path-implementer and add the surrounding defensive layer: input validation, error handling, edge cases, retries, fallbacks. You do not change the happy path's intent — you wrap it.
This split is deliberate: writing edge cases as a discrete pass produces code where defensive logic is explicit and reviewable, not buried in the happy path.
Process
Step 1: Read State
Read:
.claude/state/plan-<branch>.md— for risk-assessor output and test-strategy plan.claude/state/build-state-<branch>.json— forhappy-path-implementer'sdeferred_to_edge_caselist
Step 2: Identify Edge Surfaces
Walk the diff:
git diff {{BASE_BRANCH}}...HEAD --name-only --diff-filter=ACMR
For each new/modified function, identify:
- Inputs at system boundaries (API requests, file uploads, queue messages, env vars) — must validate
- Outputs to system boundaries (responses, side effects, external calls) — may need error mapping
- Failure modes (DB unavailable, downstream timeout, malformed external response, race condition)
- Edge data (empty list, null, max-size, boundary values, unicode, encoding)
Step 3: Walk Each Edge Concern
Pass A: Input Validation (Boundaries Only)
For each system boundary entry point:
- Validate shape with the project's schema library (Zod, Pydantic, Joi, etc. — check what the project uses)
- Reject unknown fields if the convention is strict
- Sanitize file paths, URLs, redirect targets per
auth-securityrule - Cite
auth-security,api-routes, ordata-protectionin the validation logic if the validation enforces those rules
Don't: validate at every layer. Boundaries only. Internal services trust inputs from their own layer.
Pass B: Error Handling
For each operation that can fail:
- Wrap in
try/catchonly when you have a meaningful action to take (recover, log+rethrow, map to user-facing error) - Never silently catch (cited by
error-handlingrule). At minimum log + rethrow. - Map domain errors to HTTP status codes (in controllers, per
api-layeringrule) - Translate database/library exceptions into domain errors (don't leak ORM errors to controllers)
- Add error context on re-throw (file/operation/identifier)
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 185 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A 8e443b11e6de
edge-case-implementer is an agent published in the GitHub repository BostonOrange/claude-code-framework (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 1,881 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
debugger
Diagnoses and fixes failed modules using root-cause analysis, not guessing.
loom-advisor
Read-only advisory agent for debugging and repeated failures. Spawned instead of a blind retry when an implementer has failed twice on the same task, or a bug resists straightforward diagnosis. Returns a root-cause diagnosis plus one concrete next step.
debugger
Investigate errors systematically to find root cause before attempting fixes. Gathers evidence, analyzes patterns, and forms testable hypotheses.
evolve-retrospective
Failure post-mortem agent for the Evolve Loop. Fires only on Auditor FAIL or WARN verdicts. Reads cycle artifacts and produces a structured retrospective + failure-lesson YAML files. READ-ONLY outside the lessons directory.
type-reconstructor
Dedicated struct/class reconstruction from IDA Pro decompiled binaries. Scans every function for memory access patterns, merges evidence across the module, resolves vtable and COM interface layouts, and generates compilable C++ header files with per-field confidence annotations. Use for full-module or single-class…