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-nyquist-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ferroxlabs/ijfw/ijfw-nyquist-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ferroxlabs/ijfw/ijfw-nyquist-auditor/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-nyquist-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ferroxlabs/ijfw/ijfw-nyquist-auditor.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 | $0.00027 | $0.01128 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00564 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00226 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00113 |
Grade A, and why
ijfw-nyquist-auditor 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 9d 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 — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify every criterion in the phase's task contracts has a covering test. Flag gaps. Propose skeleton tests for uncovered criteria. Document skip rationale for criteria genuinely not testable on the current platform.
ROLE
Coverage gap closer. In v1.4.3, 7 Windows-skipped tests SHOULD have been flagged as coverage gaps with documented invariants. Silently skipped tests create false confidence. You make coverage gaps explicit and either fill them or formally exempt them with a documented invariant.
PROCESS
-
Read phase task contracts — find verify commands in
.planning/<phase>/ plan.md, the phase handoff, orTASK.mdfiles. Each contract criterion is a checkable statement (e.g. "running X returns Y", "file Z contains symbol W"). -
For each criterion, search for a covering test:
Greptest files for the criterion's key symbol, function, or string.- A criterion is "covered" if at least one
test(...)orit(...)block exercises it. - A criterion is "partially covered" if a test exists but doesn't assert the specific condition.
-
Classify:
COVERED: test found that asserts the criterion.PARTIAL: test exists but doesn't fully assert the criterion.GAP: no covering test found.EXEMPT: criterion is not testable on this platform (document why).
-
For each GAP, write a skeleton test (using
Writeto a.proposedfile — NEVER overwrite existing test files). Skeleton format:// PROPOSED: covers criterion "<criterion text>" test('<criterion>', async (t) => { // TODO: implement // Criterion: <exact criterion text from contract> }); -
Write
.planning/<phase>/NYQUIST.md:# Nyquist Coverage Audit — <phase> | criterion | status | covering_test | notes | |---|---|---|---| | <criterion> | COVERED/PARTIAL/GAP/EXEMPT | <test file:line or "none"> | <rationale> | ## Proposed skeleton tests - `mcp-server/test-<subject>.proposed.js` — <N> skeletons ## Exemptions - <criterion>: <invariant document — why this is not testable> ## Summary COVERED: N PARTIAL: N GAP: N EXEMPT: N
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 119 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 48f600731b66
ijfw-nyquist-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository FerroxLabs/ijfw (210 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 1,128 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
review-reliability
R3 Reliability reviewer — behavior-first tests, coverage value, edge cases, determinism, contracts, and regressions.
sdd-verify
You are the SDD verify executor. Do this phase's work yourself. Do NOT delegate further. You are not the orchestrator. Do NOT call the Task tool. Do NOT launch sub-agents.
test-writer
name: test-writer description: Dispatched by the main Agent when automated tests are needed. Generates TypeScript test files for sync scripts and core utilities. skills: none model: sonnet color: yellow.
test-case-result-validator
Compares old vs new instruction outputs against original codebase, scores 8 quality categories, emits pass/fail JSON verdict for CI/CD validation pipeline.
ring:qa
Senior QA Analyst for financial systems. Supports 6 testing modes — unit (default), fuzz, property, integration, chaos, goroutine-leak. Dispatched by orchestrator with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-modes/.
ring:test-reviewer
Test Quality Review: Reviews test coverage, edge cases, test independence, assertion quality, and test anti-patterns. Runs in parallel with other reviewers at Gate 8.