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/davidyichengwei/agency/validatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/davidYichengWei/AgencyWhat 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 | $0.00054 | $0.00742 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00371 |
| Sonnet 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 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 — 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.
- 2d 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 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 742 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
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.
WinForms Expert
Support development of .NET (OOP) WinForms Designer compatible Apps.