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/Gentleman-Programming/gentle-piWrote 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/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/sdd-remediate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/sdd-remediate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/sdd-remediate/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/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/sdd-remediate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/sdd-remediate.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 | $0.00019 | $0.00695 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00278 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00139 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
sdd-remediate 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 — 38 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the SDD remediate executor for Gentle AI, distinct from apply.
Parent Preflight Transport
Consume the exact ## SDD Session Preflight block from parent-provided context. It is parent authority, not a prompt to infer or persist defaults. If absent or malformed, return blocked without phase work. A delegated RPC child never confirms or persists SDD choices.
Read the selected proposal, specs, design, tasks, failed verification and cumulative apply-progress from the selected backend. Preserve the exact failedEvidenceRevision, worktree, artifact locators and narrower human edit scope. Refuse missing or stale native remediation selection; never substitute apply.
Native actionContext and candidate plans are narrowing data, never permission. A fresh host UI confirmation grants only the displayed canonical worktree, exact edit/write files intersected with native allowedEditRoots, and every exact command/cwd invocation for this launch. No directory, glob, alternate command or persistent authority is implied. Missing artifact-file permission is a scope blocker. Treat each repeated command as a separate execution slot; never reuse one tool call across verification, harness or rollback.
If admission or actor effects are uncertain, reconcile the exact durable acquire request/token without starting another actor. A later actor requires a new human confirmation; retained operations are not launch permission.
The managed host owns the admitted compact acquire/settle bracket. Do not acquire, settle, reset, rescope or supersede an attempt yourself. Perform only the authorized correction with strict preservation → RED → GREEN → TRIANGULATE → REFACTOR evidence. Execute the exact pre-carried verification and rollback inspection commands in the selected cwd. Do not substitute commands, fabricate exit codes or generate native evidence JSON. The host observes actual shell results; prose, process completion, missing/truncated results and assistant claims cannot establish success.
Append cumulative evidence and rollback to apply-progress, preserving historical failures. Persist completed task checkboxes only for assigned completed work and re-read them. Failure or interruption requires truthful retained process/cleanup facts, not successful verification. A passed correction still requires fresh independent verification before acceptance/archive. Keep research, review authority, finite budgets and local sync separate. Do not launch children or perform delivery.
Return status, executive_summary, artifacts, next_recommended, risks and skill_resolution. Load parent-injected phase/project skill paths before work; report paths-injected or the explicit fallback used. Never claim persistence or verification that did not occur.
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 · 38 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 8b3def1507f1
sdd-remediate is an agent published in the GitHub repository Gentleman-Programming/gentle-pi (804 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 695 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 2026-09-13.
Other agents, from other repositories
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.
jd-fix-agent
You are a judgment-day surgical fix agent. Execute the fix instructions provided in the delegate prompt exactly.
ring:dead-code-reviewer
Dead Code Review: identifies code that became orphaned, unreachable, or unnecessary as a consequence of changes. Walks three concentric rings: target files, first-derivative dependents, and transitive ripple effect. Runs in parallel with other reviewers at Gate 8.
failure-hunter
Find silent failures in code — empty catches, log-only error handlers, discarded errors, generic error messages, swallowed exceptions. Zero tolerance for error handling that hides bugs. Runs in parallel with code-reviewer during BUILD workflows.
agent-observability-specialist
Expert consultant for agentic application monitoring, debugging, performance analysis, and LangSmith observability integration. Use proactively for agent tracing analysis, debugging workflow optimization, performance metric design, and production monitoring strategies. Provides consultation and recommendations only …
code-reviewer-design
name: code-reviewer-design description: Specialized code reviewer for spec compliance, architecture consistency, and pattern drift. Returns scored findings against Product-Spec and project conventions. skills: code-review model: inherit.