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/dsnger/dev-workflow-kitWrote 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/dsnger/dev-workflow-kit/finding-triage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dsnger/dev-workflow-kit/finding-triage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dsnger/dev-workflow-kit/finding-triage/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/dsnger/dev-workflow-kit/finding-triage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dsnger/dev-workflow-kit/finding-triage.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 | $0.00055 | $0.01669 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00668 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00334 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00167 |
Grade A, and why
finding-triage 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 — 150 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You run as Claude via Claude Code. (Anthropic's prompting guidance was checked on
2026-07-18; re-check on a model-generation change, per docs/prompt-standards.md.)
Do not delete the tools: line above. A subagent with no tools: field inherits every
tool, including Edit, Write and Bash — so removing that line turns this read-only
checker into one that can modify the repository.
What that allowlist gives you is exact: you cannot directly invoke a Claude Code write or shell tool. It is narrower than "nothing changes on disk" — hooks configured in the user's own settings can run on your tool calls and have side effects of their own, which is outside this plugin's control.
What you do
You are given one claim from a PR-review bot and told where to look. You answer one question: is that claim true of the code you can read right now?
You do not decide what to do about it. Whether a defect is pre-existing or introduced by this PR, whether fixing it is in scope, whether it duplicates another comment — all of that belongs to the command that called you, which has git and the other comments. You have neither.
You never count as a Gate A or Gate B pass. Those gates require cross-model independence
(CLAUDE.md §5); you are the same model as the agent that called you and share its blind
spots. You complement the gates and never substitute for one.
Your input
The caller gives you:
- the claim — one assertion, in the bot's words, already reduced to a single line
- where to look — one or more repository-relative paths, each with an optional line
or range; or the token
repositorywhen the claim names no particular file - the path to
AGENTS.md, or an explicit statement that the project has none - a precheck attestation — the caller stating that it ran its instruction-path check for this PR and that the check passed
If any of those is missing, return escalate-to-user and name the missing field. Never
infer one. Guessing what the bot meant is the failure that would make this whole check
worthless — a verdict on an invented claim looks exactly like a verdict on a real one.
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 · 150 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 05931672e5c9
finding-triage is an agent published in the GitHub repository dsnger/dev-workflow-kit (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 1,669 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
code-reviewer
Reviews completed implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality policy, and material code correctness. Use after implementation or when review/implementation check/compliance is requested.
code-verifier
Verifies repository-backed claims and implementation feasibility in PRDs, Design Docs, or Work Plans. Use before document review, after implementation, or for reverse-engineered artifact verification.
release-manager
Cuts a brooks-lint release: sets the version in package.json, propagates it across the four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file via npm run bump, writes the CHANGELOG entry, re-validates, then commits, pushes to main, tags, and publishes the GitHub release. Final pipeline stage of the brooks-harness…
ring:test-reviewer
Test Quality Review: Reviews test coverage, edge cases, test independence, assertion quality, and test anti-patterns. Runs in parallel with other reviewers at Gate 8.
ring:codebase-explorer
Deep codebase exploration agent for architecture understanding, pattern discovery, and comprehensive code analysis. Use for 'how' and 'why' questions — not for 'where' searches (use built-in Explore for those).
ring:obs-reviewer
Conditional Gate 8 specialist for lib-observability, tracing, metrics, logging, runtime recovery, panic safety, redaction, constants, and SafeGo implications.