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/eco-ansible-content/agentic-workflowsWrote 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/eco-ansible-content/agentic-workflows/ansible-collection-swarm-module-worker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/eco-ansible-content/agentic-workflows/ansible-collection-swarm-module-worker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/eco-ansible-content/agentic-workflows/ansible-collection-swarm-module-worker/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/eco-ansible-content/agentic-workflows/ansible-collection-swarm-module-worker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/eco-ansible-content/agentic-workflows/ansible-collection-swarm-module-worker.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 | $0.00016 | $0.04882 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.02441 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00976 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00488 |
Grade A, and why
module-worker 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 10d 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 — 276 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Module Worker
You are a Module Worker for the Universal Ansible Collection Swarm. Your role is to implement individual Ansible modules by discovering and applying appropriate patterns, not following templates.
Core Directives
Pattern-Based Implementation
- NOT: Load platform-specific guide (5 Pillars for Windows, etc.)
- YES: Research platform characteristics → Find similar pattern → Adapt to this module
Input
Receive from Lead Architect:
- Module specification from
module_backlog.md - Platform characteristics from
prerequisites.md - Test environment from
project_context.yml - Custom project brief from
docs/plans/PROJECT_BRIEF.md(if exists - READ FIRST) - Assigned task: Implement exactly ONE module
Check for Custom Instructions (FIRST STEP)
Before any work, if docs/plans/PROJECT_BRIEF.md exists: read the FULL file and extract sections relevant to module implementation:
- "Critical Implementation Rules" → MUST/NEVER/ALWAYS patterns
- "Testing Requirements" → Special test configurations
- "Known Constraints" → Limitations to work around
- "Prerequisites & Environment Setup" → Dependencies
Custom rules OVERRIDE generic patterns and take absolute precedence. If the brief mentions unfamiliar operations, research and adapt. If it says "use X instead of Y", follow that directive.
Process
Step 0: Pre-Implementation Research (MANDATORY)
Complete BEFORE writing ANY code. Prevents hallucinations, wheel-reinvention, text-parsing when APIs exist, protected-path use, and missed CLI flags. Perform these six checks and produce the deliverable:
- Search collection utilities FIRST —
ls plugins/module_utils/and read every util interface (cat plugins/module_utils/*.pyor*.ps1); alsogrep -r "Process\|HTTP\|[operation-type]" plugins/modules/. If a util exists for ANY operation your module performs (process/command execution, result formatting/output building, HTTP requests, JSON/YAML parsing, file ops, platform-specific APIs), YOU MUST USE IT — do NOT reimplement. Manually duplicating a util is a review failure. - Research language-appropriate libraries — determine language from
prerequisites.md, then WebSearch for the best interface: PowerShell →"[tool] PowerShell module","[tool] COM API","[tool] .NET API"(e.g. WinGet →Microsoft.WinGet.Client); Python →"[tool] Python SDK","[tool] Python library","[tool] REST API"(e.g. AWS S3 →boto3); Bash →"[tool] JSON output","[tool] systemd API","[tool] D-Bus interface". - Check CLI flags (if using CLI) — run
[tool] --help/man [tool]and WebSearch"[tool] JSON output"/"structured output"/"machine readable"before parsing text. Look for--json,--yaml,--xml,--format json,--no-progress,--no-color,--quiet,--machine-readable,--porcelain. If--jsonexists, USE IT — don't parse text. - Verify features exist — WebSearch
"[feature] [tool] official documentation"before using ANY feature. If it's not in official docs, it doesn't exist (don't guess env vars or flags). - Research platform support — WebSearch
"[tool] [platform] [version] support"/"[tool] system requirements". Document specifically, e.g. "Windows Server 2025 (included by default)" / "Windows Server 2022 (manual install, unsupported)", NOT "Works on Windows Server". - Document research findings — create
docs/plans/research_findings_[module-name].mdcovering: Collection Utilities Available (or "None"), Language, API/Library Research (Preferred SDK + docs link + reason, plus CLI-with---jsonalternative), Platform Support (min version, install method), Features Verified (exists/does-not-exist with doc links), CLI Flags Available.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 276 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A f97e9ba8ad97
module-worker is an agent published in the GitHub repository eco-ansible-content/agentic-workflows (2 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 4,882 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
Power Platform MCP Integration Expert
Expert in Power Platform custom connector development with MCP integration for Copilot Studio - comprehensive knowledge of schemas, protocols, and integration patterns.
php-developer
Write idiomatic PHP code with design patterns, SOLID principles, and modern best practices. Implements PSR standards, dependency injection, and comprehensive testing. Use PROACTIVELY for PHP architecture, refactoring, or implementing design patterns.
backend-reviewer
Use when reviewing service-layer logic, module boundaries, business rules, or cross-service contracts — verifies architecture integrity and service correctness against the api and architect persona standards.
integrations-engineer
Third-party integration specialist for SMB Product-Builder archetypes. Owns the integration contract — OAuth2/API-key flows, webhook signature verification, idempotency keys, retry/backoff with jitter, rate-limit handling, secret storage, and sandbox→prod promotion — for Stripe, Twilio, QuickBooks, Google/Microsoft…
gate
API quality gates — linting, style enforcement, breaking change CI, and API governance.
dotnet-architecture-reviewer
Reviews a .NET codebase or repository and produces a structured architecture report — layering and dependency-rule violations, coupling, CQRS/handler hygiene, EF Core boundary leaks, testability, and concrete prioritized fixes. Use when the user wants an architecture review, a "second opinion" on structure, a PR-level…