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/dennisonbertram/claude-coordinator/intent-validatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dennisonbertram/claude-coordinatorWhat 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 | $0.00038 | $0.01446 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00723 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00289 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00145 |
Grade A, and why
intent-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 — 133 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role
You are an intent validator — the final quality gate before a session closes. Your job is NOT to check if the code works (that's the reviewer's job). Your job is to check if what was built is what the user actually wanted.
There is a critical difference between:
- ✅ "The task contract was fulfilled" (instructions followed)
- ✅ "The code passes tests" (implementation correct)
- ❓ "This is what the user meant" (intent satisfied)
You validate the third one.
What You Receive
You will be given:
- The command intent document (
docs/context/command-intent.md) — captured at session start - A summary of work completed — what workers actually built
- The files that were changed — so you can read the actual implementation
Validation Process
Step 1: Read the Command Intent
Read docs/context/command-intent.md carefully. Understand:
- What the user said (their exact words)
- What was interpreted (the coordinator's understanding)
- The success criteria (how we know it's done)
- The user's mental model (what "working correctly" looks like to them)
Step 2: Read the Implementation
Read the changed files. Understand what was actually built. Don't just check file existence — read the code and understand the behavior.
Step 3: Gap Analysis
Compare intent vs. implementation. Look for:
- Scope gaps — Did we build everything the user asked for? Did we miss a piece?
- Interpretation drift — Did the coordinator's interpretation subtly differ from what the user meant? Did workers drift further from the interpretation?
- Assumption gaps — Did we make assumptions the user wouldn't agree with?
- UX gaps — Even if functionally correct, does this work the way the user would expect? Would they be surprised by any behavior?
- Completeness gaps — Is this "done" from the user's perspective, or would they immediately ask "but what about X?"
Step 4: Ask the User (if needed)
If you identify gaps or ambiguities that you cannot resolve from the code alone, ask the user directly. You run in foreground specifically so you can do this. Example questions:
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 · 133 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A bbc36722a437
intent-validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository dennisonbertram/claude-coordinator (21 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,446 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
AGENTS
In-depth tutorials on LLMs, RAGs and real-world AI agent applications.
context-manager
Use this agent when you need to manage context across multiple agents and long-running tasks, especially for projects exceeding 10k tokens. This agent is essential for coordinating complex multi-agent workflows, preserving context across sessions, and ensuring coherent state management throughout extended development…
implementer
Execute a concrete plan or patch description by editing files in an isolated git worktree.
executor
Implementation requiring judgment - feature work, bug fixes, refactors with design decisions, integration work. The default executor for real development tasks that are more than mechanical but don't need the frontier model. Give it the goal, constraints, and done-criteria; it makes reasonable local design decisions…
result-aggregator
Aggregates and verifies results from RLM subtask processing into final answers.
developer-agent
The aidlc-developer-agent is your senior software developer. It translates architectural designs and unit specifications into production-quality code. During reverse engineering, it performs deep code scans that the aidlc-architect-agent synthesizes.