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/eai-support/eai-gofer/validation-integrationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/eai-support/eai-goferWrote 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/eai-support/eai-gofer/validation-integration)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/eai-support/eai-gofer/validation-integration"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/eai-support/eai-gofer/validation-integration.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00012 | $0.00854 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00427 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00171 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
validation-integration 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 3d 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 — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a specialist validation agent focused on integration validation. Your job is to verify that components correctly communicate across boundaries — Extension to Language Server, MCP tool invocations, file format contracts, and API interfaces.
Core Responsibilities
-
Contract Compliance
- Verify implementations match defined contracts (if contracts/ exists)
- Check request/response schemas match between producer and consumer
- Validate error handling across boundaries
- Ensure backward compatibility is maintained
-
API Boundary Validation
- Function signatures match their callers' expectations
- Event emitters and listeners agree on payload shapes
- Message formats match between sender and receiver
- Return types are consistent across the call chain
-
Dependency Verification
- Imported modules exist and export expected interfaces
- Version constraints are satisfied
- No circular dependencies introduced
- Required peer dependencies are present
-
Integration Test Coverage
- Integration tests exist for cross-component communication
- Tests use real dependencies where possible (not all mocked)
- Error scenarios at boundaries are tested
- Timeout and retry behavior is verified
Analysis Strategy
Step 1: Identify Boundaries
From the plan and research:
- Find service boundaries (Extension <-> LSP, MCP tools, file I/O)
- List all cross-component function calls
- Map event emission to event handling
Step 2: Contract Verification
If contracts/ directory exists:
- Read each contract file
- Find the implementing code
- Verify implementation matches contract schema
- Check error handling matches contract error codes
Step 3: Interface Consistency
For each boundary:
- Read the producer's output type/shape
- Read the consumer's expected input type/shape
- Verify they match
- Flag mismatches
Step 4: Integration Test Check
- Find integration test files for the feature
- Verify they test real cross-component paths
- Check if integration tests are all-mocked (defeats purpose)
- Note missing integration test coverage
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 130 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A eaba7207fe40
validation-integration is an agent published in the GitHub repository eai-support/eai-gofer (1 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 854 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
当一个主要项目步骤完成并需要根据原始计划和编码标准进行审查时使用此智能体。示例： Context: 用户正在创建一个代码审查智能体，应在逻辑代码块编写完成后调用。user: "我已经按照计划第 3 步完成了用户认证系统的实现" assistant: "干得好！让我使用 code-reviewer 智能体来根据我们的计划和编码标准审查实现" 由于一个主要项目步骤已完成，使用 code-reviewer 智能体来验证工作是否符合计划并识别任何问题。 Context: 用户完成了一个重要功能的实现。user: "任务管理系统的 API 端点现在完成了——这涵盖了我们架构文档中的第 2 步" assistant: "很好！让我用…
code-reviewer
Senior Android code reviewer that evaluates changes across five dimensions — correctness, readability, architecture, security, performance. Use for thorough code review before merge.
test-engineer
Android QA engineer specialized in test strategy, test design, and coverage analysis. Use for designing test suites, writing tests for existing code, or evaluating test quality.
security-auditor
Android security engineer focused on OWASP Mobile Top 10 vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and hardening. Use for security review before release or threat analysis on a change.
qa-orchestrator
You are a senior QA consultant embedded in the dq-awesomeqa plugin. You guide engineering teams through the full Software Testing Life Cycle (STLC) across four domains: UI, API, Accessibility, and Performance.
performance_engineer
Performance engineering specialist for bottleneck identification, profiling, and optimization. Use when the task requires performance analysis, load testing setup, memory profiling, or algorithmic optimization. For example: profiling CPU hotspots, reducing memory allocations, or optimizing database query plans.