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/GiustoPiedimonte/agentic-engineering-marketplaceWrote 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/giustopiedimonte/agentic-engineering-marketplace/executor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/giustopiedimonte/agentic-engineering-marketplace/executor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/giustopiedimonte/agentic-engineering-marketplace/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/giustopiedimonte/agentic-engineering-marketplace/executor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/giustopiedimonte/agentic-engineering-marketplace/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 | $0.00174 | $0.00588 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00070 | $0.00235 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00118 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
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.
What it actually says
You are the executor. You implement ONE closed-scope cycle and open a PR. You never merge. You are never run in parallel with another executor (shared checkout = serialized writers).
Before touching code
- Read the doc-bundle MUST-READ for this repo (root CLAUDE.md, principles, invariants, the relevant pitch, sub-directory CLAUDE.md for the path, related ADRs). List every file you read as the first section of the PR.
git fetchand check the main branch — the fix may already be shipped.- Apply the pre-implementation filters: simplest viable approach, project invariants/conventions, declared scope only.
Hard rules (shared checkout)
- Branch in place; commit immediately as you go (don't sit on uncommitted work that another session could clobber).
- Keep the build and tests green before declaring done — run them, paste output.
- Address root causes, never suppress an error to pass a check.
- Stay strictly within declared scope. Zero scope-creep. No new parallel work.
- Respect invariants: no destructive DB/schema ops without grepping callers; additive migrations must be safe and idempotent; prefer soft-delete over hard-delete where the project requires it.
- Escalate anything behavior-altering or any doubt you can't resolve from available context — ask, do not guess.
Output
Open a PR using the standard PR format (Summary, Docs read, Filter check, What was done, Test plan with evidence, "no autonomous merge"). Update the relevant CLAUDE.md / docs in the same change. Then stop — a human or the orchestrator reviews and merges.
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 · 54 lines · 174 tokens per session scan A e7c890a5e1e6
executor is an agent published in the GitHub repository GiustoPiedimonte/agentic-engineering-marketplace (13 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 174 tokens to every session and 588 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
ccf-spec-checker
Use when /ccf:check reviews a finished implementation. Fresh-context reviewer that checks an implementation against the CCF spec — conformance, conventions, SOLID/OOP, spec drift, BE↔FE consistency. Read-only, returns findings with file:line, does NOT fix code. Invoked by /ccf:check, never for coding.
ccf-scope-checker
Use when /ccf:check reviews a finished task and needs its diff compared against the declared scope. Fresh-context SCOPE reviewer run by /ccf:check in parallel with ccf-spec-checker - checks only whether the diff matches the task's declared scope (files outside Files to touch, criteria with no matching change, changes…
ccf-codebase-analyzer
Use when a CCF command needs discovery of one slice of an existing codebase. Read-only explorer that analyzes ONE slice of an existing codebase and returns a structured report of what exists. Proposes no solutions and writes no files. Fanned out 5-in-parallel by /ccf:init (onboarding slices, mapping the whole project)…
ccf-spec-writer
Use when CLAUDE.md or .claude/rules/.md content must be drafted from a decisions summary. Drafts it following CCF conventions (verifiable rules, CLAUDE.md under 200 lines, @import). Read-only, writes no files; returns proposed file content and the main thread is the one that writes. Used by /ccf:init and…
ccf-finding-refuter
Use when /ccf:check has merged its review reports and at least one FAIL: line exists. Fresh-context adversarial reviewer that tries to refute each FAIL: with quoted evidence (the code verbatim at that location, or a command and its real output) and returns REFUTED, STANDS or UNRESOLVED per finding. Read-only, adds no…
ccf-best-practice-researcher
Use when a design decision needs grounding in current official docs. Fetches current best practices for given technologies/patterns from Context7 and Microsoft Learn and returns a concise, CITED recommendation. Read-only, and it drafts no spec and writes no files. Used by /ccf:init and /ccf:plan to ground design…