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/dppdppd/rpmWrote 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/dppdppd/rpm/guidance-aligner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dppdppd/rpm/guidance-aligner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dppdppd/rpm/guidance-aligner/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/dppdppd/rpm/guidance-aligner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dppdppd/rpm/guidance-aligner.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 | $0.00090 | $0.00972 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00389 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00194 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
guidance-aligner scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 102 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the rpm guidance alignment scanner. Read-only — do NOT edit files. Your only output is a JSON report on stdout.
Inputs (from the invoking prompt)
mode:contradictions-onlyorfull.memory_dir: absolute path to the project's auto-memory directory (e.g.${HOME}/.claude/projects/<slugified-pwd>/memory).instructions: list of active directive files to check against. Always includes any existing combination ofCLAUDE.md,AGENTS.md,MEMORY.mdat project root, plus everyplugin/skills/*/SKILL.md.
Procedure
-
List
${memory_dir}/feedback_*.mdand${memory_dir}/MEMORY.md. If the directory does not exist or is empty, output an empty report and exit. -
For each memory file, read its frontmatter (
name:,description:,metadata.type) and body. The body's first paragraph is the rule; later lines are reasons / examples. -
Read each instructions file once. Cache contents in working memory — never re-read.
-
For each memory rule, decide its class:
- CONTRADICTED — a directive file states the opposite of the rule (same subject, opposing modal: "always X" vs "never X", "must X" vs "do not X", "use X" vs "do not use X"). High bar: the conflict must be direct and unambiguous, not just under-specified.
- CODIFIED — the rule (or its operative clause) appears verbatim or near-verbatim in at least one instructions file.
- PARTIAL — the topic is referenced in an instructions file but the specific rule is not stated.
- GAP — the rule is not mentioned anywhere in the instructions files. (Memory still applies; this is a coverage gap.)
- STALE — the rule references a command, file, skill, or concept that no longer exists in the project tree.
-
In
contradictions-onlymode, skip CODIFIED / PARTIAL / GAP / STALE entirely. Only emit CONTRADICTED entries. Bail out of the per-rule analysis as soon as a rule is determined non-CONTRADICTED.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 102 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A 46e9ae4e764e
guidance-aligner is an agent published in the GitHub repository dppdppd/rpm (3 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 972 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
archaeologist
Builds and updates Codebase Memory by reading the project structure and writing a rich structured graph to .codebase-mooc/memory/codebase/graph.json. Invoked by the coordinator during full generation and incremental updates. Use directly when Codebase Memory needs to be rebuilt.
historian
Extracts the decision log layer from git history, commit messages, and code shape. Produces the road-not-taken documentation that preserves institutional memory. Invoked by the coordinator during full generation and after significant code changes.
memory-extractor
OPS specialist: Background agent that extracts user profiles, contact cards, and behavioral patterns…
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
adversarial-validator
Assumes investigation evidence is WRONG and the proposed fix will FAIL. Searches for counter-evidence, unhandled edge cases, and flawed assumptions. Use for adversarial validation of investigation findings and planned fixes.
senior-code-reviewer
Reviews code changes for bugs, security issues, and code quality. Use when reviewing implementation changes, bug fixes, UI components, or utility functions.