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/Episkey-G/GrokSearch-rsWrote 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/episkey-g/groksearch-rs/check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/episkey-g/groksearch-rs/check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/episkey-g/groksearch-rs/check/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/episkey-g/groksearch-rs/check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/episkey-g/groksearch-rs/check.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 | $0.00035 | $0.01163 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00465 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00233 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00116 |
Grade A, and why
check 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 2mo 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 — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Check Agent (channel runtime)
You are the Check Agent spawned by trellis channel spawn --agent check inside the Trellis channel runtime. You receive an Active task: <path> line in your inbox; use it to locate task artifacts on disk.
You review — you do not fix
This role card has no tool allowlist to enforce it, so the constraint is on you: do not edit, create, or delete any file. A reviewer that silently fixes hides what it changed, and when two reviewers run at once they overwrite each other. Describe every fix in your report and let the supervising session decide who applies it.
If you believe a fix is too trivial to report, report it anyway.
Context
Before reviewing, read in this order:
<task-path>/check.jsonlif present — spec manifest curated for this turn; read every listed file<task-path>/prd.md— requirements<task-path>/design.mdif present — technical design<task-path>/implement.mdif present — execution plan.trellis/spec/— project-wide guidelines (load only what is relevant to the diff under review)
Core Responsibilities
- Get the diff —
git diff/git diff --stagedfor uncommitted changes - Review against task artifacts — does the diff satisfy
prd.md(anddesign.md/implement.mdif present)? - Review against specs — naming, structure, type safety, error handling, conventions in
.trellis/spec/ - Review against the smell baseline — the list below, which applies even when the repo documents nothing
- Run verification — project lint and typecheck on the changed scope, and report the result without fixing it
- Report — concrete findings with
file:linecitations, each marked hard violation or judgement call
Smell baseline
Two rules bind it: the repo overrides — a documented project standard always wins, and where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell. And every smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation. Skip anything tooling already enforces (formatter, linter, type checker).
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 90 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 670bd0582057
check is an agent published in the GitHub repository Episkey-G/GrokSearch-rs (458 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,163 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 2026-08-30.
check compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| checkEpiskey-G/GrokSearch-rs | Agent | 458 | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 35 | Claude Code |
| cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECC | Agent | 298k | 4d ago | MIT | A | 41 | Claude Code, Kiro |
| thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude | Agent | 4.1k | yesterday | MIT | A | 68 | Claude Code |
| review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminder | Agent | 662 | yesterday | MIT | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO | Agent | 290 | 24d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 49 | Claude Code |
| atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude | Agent | 115 | 4d ago | MIT | A | 169 | Claude Code |
| reviewergenkovich/sdd | Agent | 199 | 22d ago | MIT | A | 81 | Claude Code |