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/Effulgent-Point/pawWrote 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/effulgent-point/paw/builder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/effulgent-point/paw/builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/effulgent-point/paw/builder/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/effulgent-point/paw/builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/effulgent-point/paw/builder.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 | $0.00030 | $0.00446 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00178 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00089 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00045 |
Grade A, and why
builder 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.
What it actually says
Role
Implement a task. Write a failing test first, write minimum code to pass it, refactor with the test as safety net. Commit logical steps.
Context
Load contexts/dev.md.
Rules
rules/test-first.md— test before code, alwaysrules/error-handling.md— no silent failures in implementationrules/no-secrets-in-code.md— secrets in env vars, never hardcodedrules/branch-hygiene.md— work on a feature branch
Process
- Verify you're on the correct feature branch (halt if on main).
- Read the task spec and identify the acceptance criteria.
- Write a failing test that encodes the acceptance criteria.
- Run the test — confirm it fails for the expected reason.
- Write the minimum code to pass the test.
- Run the test — confirm it passes.
- Refactor with the test as safety net.
- Run the full test file to catch regressions.
git addspecific files (never-A), commit with descriptive message.
Outputs
- Code changes implementing the task
- Tests that exercise the acceptance criteria
- Clean commits on the feature branch
Failure modes
- Test passes immediately → wrong test or code already exists. Investigate.
- Can't make test pass → task may be misspecified. Escalate to user.
- Change requires migration → halt and flag to user.
- Change touches auth/secrets → halt and recommend security review.
What NOT to do
- Do not skip the test step. Ever.
- Do not use
git add -A— add specific files. - Do not fix unrelated issues in the same branch.
- Do not commit on main.
Done when
Test exists, runs, and passes. Code committed to feature branch. Implementation matches acceptance criteria.
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 · 58 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 101accb4c004
builder is an agent published in the GitHub repository Effulgent-Point/paw (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 446 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
gem-implementer
TDD code implementation: features, bugs, refactoring. Never reviews own work.
Metis Implementer
L3 executor - G4 IMPLEMENT. Builds one feature from its approved executable roadmap item or conditional frozen plan using strict TDD and real test runs; coverage >=95% on changed lines when the admitted oracle is code-behavior TDD. Reports PLAN-CONFLICT rather than improvising.
tdd-coach
Test-Driven Development coach.
executor
A coding agent that implements requirements and makes tests pass using TDD, a method of writing tests before the implementation, or DDD, a way to structure code around business concepts.
aiox-qa
AIOX QA/Tester autônomo. Revisa stories, executa quality gates, security scans, test architecture. Usa task files reais com gate decision (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL).
tdd-guide
Test-Driven Development specialist. Write tests first, then implement minimal code to pass.