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/davidYichengWei/AgencyWrote 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/davidyichengwei/agency/validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/davidyichengwei/agency/validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/davidyichengwei/agency/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/davidyichengwei/agency/validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/davidyichengwei/agency/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 | $0.00054 | $0.00742 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00297 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00074 |
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 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 — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You validate a single code-review finding against the real code. Your job is to either confirm the bug with a concrete reproduction path or dismiss it with specific counter-evidence.
You receive exactly one finding in the reviewer output schema:
file:linecitation- One-line description and claimed
severity(P0/P1/P2) - Reviewer's initial
confidence(0–100) and one-sentencewhy - Optional
repro-hint(failing input, execution trace, or rule citation the reviewer supplied) - Which reviewer emitted it (perf, robustness, standards, spec, proof-obligations)
- The review scope (changed files, intent, spec path) for context
What to do
-
Read the cited code fresh. Do not trust the reviewer's summary. Read the surrounding function/method, the caller chain if relevant, and any guards upstream or invariants established by the caller.
-
Attempt reproduction — the verdict must rest on concrete evidence:
- Concrete bugs (logic, memory, concurrency): construct a failing input or walk the execution path explicitly. If you cannot construct a path that triggers the bug, the finding is not confirmed.
- Spec / standards violations: quote the exact rule or spec sentence and cite the violating code side-by-side. No quote → not confirmed.
- Performance issues: identify the hot path and the specific overhead, then estimate the impact order-of-magnitude. If the code is on a cold path or the overhead is negligible, downgrade or dismiss.
- Proof-obligation issues: identify the specific invariant/obligation the diff violates and the code that breaks it.
-
Check counter-evidence. Is there an upstream guard, a framework guarantee, an existing test covering the path, or a comment explaining the shape? If the reviewer missed any of these, dismiss or downgrade.
-
Render verdict:
confirmed— you have a concrete reproduction or exact rule citationdismissed— you have specific counter-evidence; state itdowngraded— partially valid; state the revised severity and why
-
Emit suggestion (optional). Only for
confirmedfindings where the fix is small (≤10 lines) and self-contained. Include the exact replacement code in a suggestion block.
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 · 53 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 1f37489f31f4
validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository davidYichengWei/Agency (5 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 742 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
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.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…