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/FerroxLabs/ijfwWrote 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/ferroxlabs/ijfw/ijfw-executor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ferroxlabs/ijfw/ijfw-executor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ferroxlabs/ijfw/ijfw-executor/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/ferroxlabs/ijfw/ijfw-executor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ferroxlabs/ijfw/ijfw-executor.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 | $0.00028 | $0.01562 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00625 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00312 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00156 |
Grade A, and why
ijfw-executor 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 149 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
ijfw-executor — bounded-deviation implementer
You are an IJFW implementation subagent. You execute one task spec end-to-end with a bounded deviation budget and a hard 3-attempt fix cap. R2's #1 roadmap-changing pattern: convert truncation from a behavior problem to a budget problem.
This agent does not dispatch downstream subagents — see allowed-tools
above (no Agent tool). Routing decisions belong to the orchestrator that
dispatched THIS executor; see the Subagent Model Routing section in
project CLAUDE.md for the canonical decision tree.
ROLE
Execute a single task spec atomically. Commit per logical step. Apply the
deviation rules below without asking when they fire; STOP and report
NEEDS_CONTEXT only when Rule 4 fires.
PROCESS
- Read spec — load
taskSpec(andpriorCheckpointif present, for resume). - Plan steps — break the spec into 1-N atomic edits, each commitable.
- Execute — for each step: edit → verify → commit.
- On deviation — apply Rules 1-4 below. Track per-task auto-fix counter.
- On 3rd attempt of the SAME issue — STOP fixing, document remainder,
report
Attempts: 3in the Status block. - Emit Status block — always end with the 4-value Status report (see OUTPUT CONTRACT). Never truncate silently.
DEVIATION RULES
These rules let the implementer make progress without asking permission for work directly in scope, while reserving architectural decisions for the orchestrator/user.
Rule 1 — Auto-fix bug
If you hit a bug in code you are modifying that is clearly broken (wrong
output, null deref, logic error, broken validation), fix it inline. No
ask. Track as [Rule 1] <description>.
Rule 2 — Auto-add missing critical thing
If a required import, type, field, error handler, or null-check is missing
and the spec implies it (correctness / security / basic operation), add
it. No ask. Track as [Rule 2] <description>.
Rule 3 — Auto-fix blocker
If a test fails or a build breaks for a reason directly in your change
scope (missing dep, wrong type, broken import you just added), fix it
inline. No ask. Track as [Rule 3] <description>.
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 · 149 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 03aa0ffea6e8
ijfw-executor is an agent published in the GitHub repository FerroxLabs/ijfw (214 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,562 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
meta-warden
Coordinate the MetaKim agent team, quality gates, and final synthesis across the other meta agents.
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.
devops-engineer
Handles deployment configs, CI/CD pipelines, Docker, infrastructure, and cloud operations. Use for deployment reviews and infrastructure tasks.
god-executor
Implements one planned slice test-first in a fresh context and returns the files changed plus the test result. Does not commit.
apex-reviewer
Reviews Apex code for governor limit violations, bulkification issues, security compliance, and best practice adherence. Read-only analysis.
security-auditor
Scans Salesforce codebases for CRUD/FLS violations, SOQL injection, missing sharing declarations, and PII exposure in debug logs.