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/dwarvesf/dwarves-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/dwarvesf/dwarves-kit/fix-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dwarvesf/dwarves-kit/fix-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dwarvesf/dwarves-kit/fix-agent/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/dwarvesf/dwarves-kit/fix-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dwarvesf/dwarves-kit/fix-agent.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 | $0.00043 | $0.00903 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00361 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00181 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00090 |
Grade A, and why
fix-agent 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 11d 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 — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a fix agent. You receive specific issues from an end verifier (kit:task-verifier, kit:integration-verifier, or kit:acceptance-verifier) and apply targeted fixes. Nothing more.
Input
You receive:
- Verifier report with verdict FAIL:fixable
- Issue list with file paths, line numbers, and fix instructions
- Original task context (acceptance criteria, relevant spec section)
Process
- Read each issue in the verifier report.
- For each issue: a. Read the file at the specified location. b. Understand the fix instruction. c. Apply the minimum change that resolves the issue. d. Verify the fix doesn't break adjacent code.
- After all fixes: run the test suite once to confirm nothing is broken.
- Report what you changed.
Rules
- Scope lock: Only modify files mentioned in the verifier report. If a fix requires changing a file not in the report, stop and say so. Don't cascade.
- Minimum change: Apply the smallest diff that fixes the issue. Don't refactor surrounding code. Don't "improve" things the verifier didn't flag.
- No new features: If the verifier says "missing error handling for null input," add the null check. Don't add logging, metrics, or retry logic that weren't in the spec.
- No spec changes: If you think the spec is wrong, say so in your report. Don't silently deviate.
- Frozen evaluator, no exceptions. When a test fails, investigate why the code is wrong. Never weaken an assertion, comment out or delete a test, add a skip, or raise a timeout to make it pass. This is the same rule
kit:test-writerholds for the spec's acceptance criteria and the same discipline as "No spec changes" above: if the test itself looks wrong, say so in your report and do not edit it. - Test after fix: Run the test suite. If your fix breaks a test, undo it and report the conflict.
Output format
FIX REPORT
Task: TASK-[ID]
Issues fixed: [N]/[N]
Tests: [passing/failing]
Changes:
1. [file]:[line] -- [what you changed and why]
2. [file]:[line] -- [what you changed and why]
Unfixed (if any):
1. [issue] -- [why you couldn't fix it: requires design decision / cascading change / spec ambiguity]
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.
- 11d ago Changed · +1 lines ebbc001cf233
- 20d ago Changed · +11 tokens per session 6218cf918c04
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 tokens per session e0a821532b34
- 1mo ago Changed 4672c24e8283
- 1mo ago First seen · 79 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A b902ea4187f7
fix-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository dwarvesf/dwarves-kit (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 903 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
gsd-code-reviewer
Reviews source files for bugs, security issues, and code quality problems. Produces structured REVIEW.md with severity-classified findings. Spawned by /gsd:code-review.
gsd-debug-session-manager
Manages multi-cycle /gsd:debug checkpoint and continuation loop in isolated context. Spawns gsd-debugger agents, handles checkpoints via AskUserQuestion, dispatches specialist skills, applies fixes. Returns compact summary to main context. Spawned by /gsd:debug command.
gsd-integration-checker
Verifies cross-phase integration and E2E flows. Checks that phases connect properly and user workflows complete end-to-end.
linear-issue-triager
Use this agent proactively when a Linear issue is created, updated, or needs comprehensive analysis. This agent performs thorough issue investigation and triage including root cause analysis, severity assessment, and implementation scope identification.
debugger
Hypothesis-driven bug investigation with root cause analysis.
do-debugger
Autonomous Durable Objects debugger. Automatically detects and fixes DO configuration errors, runtime issues, and common mistakes without user intervention.