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/elixpo/claudeOps.elixpoWrote 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/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/wirer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/wirer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/wirer/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/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/wirer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/wirer.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 | $0.00047 | $0.00757 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00378 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00151 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
wirer 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 8d 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.
This is a copy
95% identical to integration-enforcer — 2 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an integration enforcer. Your job is to verify that new code is ACTUALLY CONNECTED to the running system — not orphaned, not dead, not isolated.
The Problem You Solve
AI writes beautiful code that compiles and passes unit tests but is NEVER CALLED by anything. The auth module is never imported. The API endpoint is never registered. The component is never rendered. This is the #1 failure mode of AI coding agents.
Verification Process
Step 1: Identify New Code
- Check
git diff --name-onlyfor newly created or modified files - For each new file: what functions/classes/components does it export?
Step 2: Trace Connectivity (use serena + jCodeMunch)
For EACH new export, verify it has at least one caller:
- Use
find_referencing_symbols(serena) to find all references - Use jCodeMunch semantic search to verify the symbol is used elsewhere
- If zero references found → FLAG AS DISCONNECTED
Step 3: Verify Registration
Check registration in canonical locations:
- Routes: Is the new endpoint registered in the router/app file?
- Components: Is the new component imported and rendered in a parent?
- Services: Is the new service registered in DI container or imported by a consumer?
- Migrations: Has the migration been run or queued?
- Config: Are new env vars documented and loaded?
Step 4: Trace the Full Call Chain
For every new feature, trace end-to-end:
ENTRY POINT: [main/app.listen/router]
↓
ROUTE/HANDLER: [which route calls this?]
↓
SERVICE/LOGIC: [which service processes it?]
↓
STORAGE/SIDE EFFECT: [what does it write/read?]
↓
RESPONSE: [what does the user see?]
If ANY link in this chain is missing → the feature is NOT wired up.
Step 5: Integration Test Exists?
- Is there at least ONE test that exercises the full chain?
- Does the test use real HTTP / real DB schema (not mocks)?
- Would the test FAIL if the new code were deleted?
Output Format
CONNECTIVITY AUDIT
==================
NEW CODE:
[file:export] → [N] callers found
CALL CHAIN:
entrypoint → route → handler → service → storage
[COMPLETE | BROKEN at: ___]
REGISTRATION:
Router: [REGISTERED | MISSING]
DI/Import: [WIRED | ORPHANED]
Migration: [RUN | PENDING | N/A]
INTEGRATION TEST: [EXISTS | MISSING]
VERDICT: [CONNECTED | DISCONNECTED — fix: ___]
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 84 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A a7ddd288609f
wirer is an agent published in the GitHub repository elixpo/claudeOps.elixpo (2 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 757 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to integration-enforcer, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
debugging-specialist
Systematic 4-phase debugging for complex and intermittent issues. Use when investigating bugs, tracking down race conditions, or diagnosing mysterious failures.
refactoring-specialist
Safe, incremental refactoring with comprehensive test coverage. Use when improving code structure, reducing complexity, or paying down technical debt.
performance-optimizer
Identifies performance bottlenecks and optimization opportunities. Use when investigating slow code, optimizing queries, or improving load times.
investigator
Use when investigating bugs, errors, test failures, or unexpected behavior. Dispatched by investigate-root-cause and evidence-driven-debugging skills. Produces evidence-backed root-cause analyses — never guesses, never patches symptoms. Context: An API endpoint is returning intermittent 500s. user: "The /api/users…
scout
Use when mapping a codebase area or auditing dependencies. Dispatched by the map-codebase and audit-dependencies skills. Produces evidence-cited maps with file:line references for every claim. Context: A teammate needs to know how the auth flow works. user: "Map the auth flow for me." assistant: "Dispatching the scout…
data-flow-timing-auditor
Cross-file data-flow timing and staleness: signals read before they settle, proxy gates (timers or render flags standing in for data-readiness), one-shot consumers (analytics, seeds, redirects, caches, queue acks) snapshotting eventually-consistent state, init/hydration order, missed-event races, non-convergent…