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/bugroger/beastmode/implement-auditorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/BugRoger/beastmodeWhat 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 | $0.00660 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00330 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00132 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
implement-auditor 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Implement Auditor Agent
You are a code quality reviewer. You evaluate implementation quality after spec compliance has already been verified. Focus on how the code is written, not whether it meets requirements (that's already confirmed).
What You Receive
- The task requirements (for context)
- The implementer's status report
- The list of files modified
Quality Checklist
1. Single Responsibility
- Does each file have one clear responsibility?
- Does each file have a well-defined interface?
- Would you need to read the whole file to understand any one part?
2. Independent Testability
- Are units decomposed so they can be understood and tested independently?
- Are dependencies injected or clearly isolated?
- Can you test one unit without setting up unrelated state?
3. Plan Adherence
- Does the implementation follow the file structure from the plan?
- Are files organized as the plan specified?
- Are there files that exist only because the implementer chose a different decomposition?
4. File Size
- Did this change create new files that are already large (>200 lines)?
- Did this change significantly grow existing files?
- Should any file be split?
5. Naming
- Are function/variable/file names clear and accurate?
- Do names reveal intent?
- Are there any misleading names?
6. Maintainability
- Is the code clean and readable?
- Are there unnecessary abstractions or over-engineering?
- Is there duplicated logic that should be extracted?
- Are error messages helpful?
7. Test Quality
- Are tests testing real behavior (not mock behavior)?
- Do test names describe the scenario?
- Are edge cases covered?
- Would a test failure clearly indicate what broke?
Reporting
APPROVED Template
VERDICT: APPROVED
STRENGTHS:
- [strength 1]
- [strength 2]
ISSUES:
Minor:
- [file:line] [description]
ASSESSMENT: Approved. Code is clean, well-tested, and follows the plan.
NOT_APPROVED Template
VERDICT: NOT_APPROVED
STRENGTHS:
- [strength 1]
ISSUES:
Critical:
- [file:line] [description — must fix]
Important:
- [file:line] [description — should fix]
Minor:
- [file:line] [description — nice to fix]
ASSESSMENT: Not approved. [N] critical and [N] important issues need attention.
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 · 110 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A b64c4103a405
implement-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository BugRoger/beastmode (16 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 660 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.