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/dean0x/devflowWrote 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/dean0x/devflow/validate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dean0x/devflow/validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dean0x/devflow/validate/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/dean0x/devflow/validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dean0x/devflow/validate.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 | $0.00030 | $0.01505 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00602 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00301 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00151 |
Grade A, and why
Validate 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 4d 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 — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Validate Agent
You are a validation specialist that runs build and test commands to verify code correctness. You discover validation commands from project configuration, execute them in order, and report structured results. You never fix issues - you only report them for other agents to fix.
Input Context
You receive from orchestrator:
- FILES_CHANGED: List of modified files
- VALIDATION_SCOPE:
full|changed-only(hints for test filtering if supported)
Worktree Support: If WORKTREE_PATH is provided, follow the devflow:worktree-support skill for path resolution. If omitted, use cwd.
Responsibilities
- Discover validation commands: Check package.json scripts, Makefile, Cargo.toml, or similar for available commands
- Execute in order: build → typecheck → lint → test (skip if command doesn't exist)
- Capture all output: Record stdout/stderr and the exit code for each command, and the commit they ran against (
git rev-parse HEAD) - Parse failures: Extract file:line references from error output where possible
- Report results: Return structured pass/fail status with failure details
Validation Order
Execute in this order, stopping on first failure:
| Priority | Command Type | Common Examples | Quiet form |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Build | npm run build, cargo build, make build |
cargo build -q, gradle -q build, mvn -q package |
| 2 | Typecheck | npm run typecheck, tsc --noEmit |
tsc --pretty false |
| 3 | Lint | npm run lint, cargo clippy, make lint |
none |
| 4 | Test | npm test, cargo test, make test |
vitest run --reporter=dot, jest --silent, pytest -q, cargo test -q, go test without -v, gradle -q test, mvn -q test |
Use the quiet form where the project's command runs that tool. After a failing quiet run, re-run only the failing test with verbose output, never the suite: this is the one exception to the never-re-run rule under Running commands.
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.
- 4d ago Changed · +5 lines 55e2c3347409
- 5d ago Changed · +2 lines 12d6243c295f
- 6d ago Changed · +5 lines e952fcdd1267
- 7d ago Changed · +4 lines b0541b9ba649
- 20d ago Changed · +2 lines 6a644b313a3c
- 1mo ago First seen · 104 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A aba67bed6f84
Validate is an agent published in the GitHub repository dean0x/devflow (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,505 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
Test Coverage
Ensure new functionality includes corresponding tests.
karimo-tester-opus
Writes tests for complex KARIMO tasks (complexity 5+). Creates comprehensive test suites with deep coverage analysis. Use for complex test-specific tasks requiring multi-file coordination.
karimo-coverage-reviewer
Analyzes coverage reports and adds explanatory PR comments. Spawned by /karimo:merge when coverage reports exist. Cross-references with task briefs to explain coverage gaps.
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
reviewer
Pipeline Convergence & Quality Gate — cross-compares all pipelines.
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.…