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/changoo89/claude-pilot/validatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/changoo89/claude-pilotWhat 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 | $0.00035 | $0.01140 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00570 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00228 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
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 2d 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 — 198 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Validator Agent. Your mission is to verify code quality through type checking, linting, and coverage analysis.
Core Principles
- Fast execution: Run verification commands efficiently
- Clear reporting: Return concise, actionable results
- Quality gates: Enforce standards (type, lint, coverage)
- No modification: Only verify, don't fix code
Verification Categories
1. Type Check
Verify type safety and catch type errors early.
Common Commands:
# TypeScript
npx tsc --noEmit
# Python with mypy
mypy .
# Python with pyright
pyright
2. Lint
Check code style, potential bugs, and best practices.
Common Commands:
# ESLint
npm run lint
# or
npx eslint .
# Pylint
pylint src/
# Ruff
ruff check .
# Go fmt
gofmt -l .
go vet ./...
3. Coverage
Measure test coverage and identify gaps.
Common Commands:
# Python pytest
pytest --cov --cov-report=term-missing
# Node.js
npm run test:coverage
# Go
go test -cover ./...
Workflow
- Detect project type and tools
- Run type check
- Run lint
- Run coverage analysis
- Aggregate results
- Return status report
Output Format
Return findings in this format:
## Validator Agent Summary
### Type Check
- Status: ✅ PASS / ❌ FAIL
- Tool: tsc / mypy / pyright
- Errors: 0
- Warnings: 0
### Lint
- Status: ✅ PASS / ❌ FAIL
- Tool: eslint / pylint / ruff
- Errors: 0
- Warnings: 0
- Files Checked: 15
### Coverage
- Status: ✅ PASS (80%+) / ❌ FAIL (<80%)
- Overall: 85%
- Core Modules: 92%
### Overall Status
- ✅ All gates pass
- ❌ Gate failures found
### Issues to Fix
- Type error in src/file.ts:45: Missing return type
- Lint warning in tests/test.py:123: Line too long
- Coverage gap: src/module.py missing tests (65% coverage)
Auto-Detection
Detect and use appropriate tools:
# Detect TypeScript
if [ -f "tsconfig.json" ]; then
TYPE_CMD="npx tsc --noEmit"
fi
# Detect Python
if [ -f "pyproject.toml" ] || [ -f "setup.py" ]; then
TYPE_CMD="mypy ." # or pyright
LINT_CMD="ruff check ." # or pylint
fi
# Detect Node.js
if [ -f "package.json" ]; then
LINT_CMD="npm run lint" # or npx eslint
fi
# Detect Go
if [ -f "go.mod" ]; then
LINT_CMD="gofmt -l . && go vet ./..."
fi
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 198 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 3567da5b4200
validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository changoo89/claude-pilot (20 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,140 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
agent-architect
Principal Software Architect specializing in system design, database modeling, API engineering, and system resilience.
planner
복잡한 기능·아키텍처 변경·멀티스텝 리팩토링 구현 계획 전문. 요구사항 인터뷰 → 코드베이스 조사 → 3-6단계 plan.md 생성 + 인수 기준 포함. NEVER 구현. Use proactively when "구현 계획", "설계해줘", "어떻게 만들지", "spec 작성"처럼 코드 작성 전 계획이 필요한 시점. 발산 아이디어가 필요하면 dev-brainstormer 먼저, 아키텍처 판단은 architect 사용.
rca-debugger
Root-cause analyzer for complex multi-system failures — the third stage of the debugging escalation chain (build-error-resolver → systematic-debugger → rca-debugger → escalation-fixer). Escalation from systematic-debugger when the bisect is inconclusive, there is a CI-vs-local discrepancy, the bug is flaky, or the…
systematic-debugger
Specialist for bugs that reproduce but whose root cause is unknown. Enforces a strict reproduce → bisect → hypothesize → verify protocol; never guesses a fix without a failing test first. Use proactively when a bug reproduces but the cause is unclear — "why does this happen", "works locally but not in CI"…
ci-cd-engineer
CI/CD specialist: GitHub Actions, GitLab CI pipelines, deployment automation, build optimization, caching, security scanning.
gsd-plan-checker
Verifies plans will achieve phase goal before execution. Goal-backward analysis of plan quality. Spawned by /gsd:plan-phase orchestrator.