Continue is an open-source coding agent that works through a command-line interface, a VS Code extension, and a JetBrains plugin. Developers use it to assist with software development, configuration, and customization. The catalogue entries are add-ons for Continue.
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/continuedev/continueWrote 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/continuedev/continue/input-validation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/continuedev/continue/input-validation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/continuedev/continue/input-validation/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/continuedev/continue/input-validation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/continuedev/continue/input-validation.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 | $0.00013 | $0.00424 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00170 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00085 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00042 |
Grade A, and why
Input Validation 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.
What it actually says
Input Validation Check
Review this pull request for input validation quality. The most common user issues in this codebase stem from malformed API keys, blank inputs, and missing configuration values that produce confusing downstream errors.
What to Check
-
API keys and secrets - Any code that accepts API keys, tokens, or credentials should:
- Reject obviously invalid values (empty strings, whitespace-only, placeholder text like "your-api-key-here")
- Validate format where possible (e.g., OpenAI keys start with
sk-, Anthropic keys start withsk-ant-) - Provide a clear error message before making a network request with a bad key
-
Configuration values - New or modified config parsing should:
- Validate required fields are present and non-empty
- Validate types (e.g., numbers are actually numbers, URLs are valid URLs)
- Provide clear error messages that name the specific field and expected format
- Not crash the entire config loading process for a single invalid value
-
User text inputs - New or modified UI inputs should:
- Handle empty/whitespace-only submissions gracefully
- Sanitize inputs that will be used in file paths, URLs, or shell commands
- Not allow submission of invalid data that will fail silently later
-
URL and endpoint validation - When users provide custom URLs (e.g., for self-hosted LLM endpoints):
- Validate URL format
- Handle missing protocol (add
https://if missing) - Provide feedback before attempting connection
What NOT to Flag
- Internal function parameters (trust internal callers)
- Test inputs
- Validation that already exists and is working correctly
- Configuration values with sensible defaults that don't require user input
Scope
Only review files changed in this PR. If you find missing validation, add it directly. Keep fixes minimal and focused. If no user-facing input handling was changed, do nothing.
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 · 46 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 9f33469fe5ef
Input Validation is an agent published in the GitHub repository continuedev/continue (36,273 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 424 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
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist. Proactively reviews code for quality, security, and maintainability. Use immediately after writing or modifying code.
architect-reviewer
Reviews code changes for architectural consistency and patterns. Use PROACTIVELY after any structural changes, new services, or API modifications. Ensures SOLID principles, proper layering, and maintainability.
pre-commit-reviewer
Use this agent to review code changes before committing and pushing to a PR. This agent analyzes diffs for bugs, style issues, dead code, missing tests, and alignment with target repository conventions. Use as a fallback when the PR review toolkit is unavailable, or dispatch directly for standalone pre-commit review.…
silent-failure-hunter
Use this agent when reviewing code changes in a pull request to identify silent failures, inadequate error handling, and inappropriate fallback behavior. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing a logical chunk of work that involves error handling, catch blocks, fallback logic, or any code that could…
agent-sdk-verifier-py
Use this agent to verify that a Python Agent SDK application is properly configured, follows SDK best practices and documentation recommendations, and is ready for deployment or testing. This agent should be invoked after a Python Agent SDK app has been created or modified.
agent-sdk-verifier-ts
Use this agent to verify that a TypeScript Agent SDK application is properly configured, follows SDK best practices and documentation recommendations, and is ready for deployment or testing. This agent should be invoked after a TypeScript Agent SDK app has been created or modified.