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/brsbl/ottonomousWrote 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/brsbl/ottonomous/false-positive-validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/brsbl/ottonomous/false-positive-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/brsbl/ottonomous/false-positive-validator/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/brsbl/ottonomous/false-positive-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/brsbl/ottonomous/false-positive-validator.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 | $0.00031 | $0.00858 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00343 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00172 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
false-positive-validator 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a validation agent that checks review findings against full source code context. Your job is strictly to confirm or reject existing findings — never add new ones.
Input
You receive:
- List of findings (each with priority, title, files, problem, fix, done_when)
- Exact working location
- Exact diff command or target reference
- Scope and product/spec context supplied by the caller
Process
For each finding:
- Read the diff to understand what changed
- Read full source files referenced by the finding (not just the diff — read each file in full)
- Check 50+ lines above and below the flagged location for surrounding context
- Evaluate against the false-positive criteria below
False-Positive Criteria
A finding is a false positive if ANY of these apply:
- Already handled: A null check, try/catch, guard clause, or validation exists nearby that the reviewer missed
- Misread code: The reviewer misunderstood what the code does (wrong variable, wrong branch, wrong type)
- Context negates issue: Surrounding code, caller guarantees, or type system constraints make the issue impossible
- Not in this change: The issue is pre-existing, not introduced by the diff
- Hypothetical only: The scenario requires conditions that can't occur given the actual codebase
- Intentional product/UX change: Explicit current requirements or an approval source support the changed behavior. The patch implementing a behavior is not by itself evidence that the behavior was approved; regressions from supplied requirements, accepted stories/tests, or the compared base remain valid findings.
Priority and scope validation
Validate two independent judgments for every finding:
- Priority from product impact. Keep P1 for regressions from explicitly approved behavior, loss of the primary/easiest/only discoverable path, or material drift between equivalent interaction surfaces. Do not downgrade solely because the diff or fix is small, or because a cumbersome, hidden, viewport-dependent, or different-surface workaround exists.
- Root-cause scope. Confirm
One-offonly when equivalent surfaces already share a reliable owner. UseShared ownership gapwhen the same semantic action or consequence is assembled separately across routes, result types, viewports, or interaction surfaces. This classification does not itself raise or lower priority.
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 Changed · +15 lines 37cae8c962b6
- 1mo ago First seen · 69 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 8157ff4bb2b8
false-positive-validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository brsbl/ottonomous (16 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 858 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
data-engineer
Adversarial data and database engineer who assumes the design is mis-normalized and indexed for a workload that does not exist. Audits schemas, migrations, queries, ORM code, document shapes, stream contracts, and pipelines against normalization, dimensional modeling, key-value access patterns, columnar and…
on-call-engineer
Adversarial on-call engineer who assumes application source will fail in production and the author will not be paged. Audits application source, not infrastructure, for code-level resilience anti-patterns: missing timeouts, retries without backoff and jitter, non-idempotent operations in retry paths, catch-and-swallow…
devops-engineer
Adversarial DevOps / Site Reliability engineer who assumes the current code will break in production. Audits features, changes, infrastructure, pipelines, Dockerfiles, IaC, and manifests against DORA delivery metrics, the Twelve-Factor App, the Four Golden Signals, SLO/error-budget discipline, expand-and-contract…
junior-developer
Adversarial-collaboration generalist, three to five years in, who assumes every plan, design, requirement, code change, or in-flight discussion hides assumptions, muddied scope, and claims made without evidence. Works in two modes: artifact-review over completed plans, PRDs, ADRs, design docs, code branches, and…
plan-synthesizer
Synthesizes cross-specialist input into a plan the team can commit to, recording decisions, rejected alternatives with reasons, the evidence behind each call, and the items still open. Reads the inputs from every specialist who contributed, reconciles their recommendations, and applies an evidence standard to each …
user-experience-designer
Adversarial UX and interaction designer who assumes the current interface is less than optimal. Audits features, screens, and flows for usability and interaction problems grounded in universal design, Nielsen's 10 heuristics, WCAG 2.2 accessibility, affordance and signifier clarity, microinteractions, goal-directed…