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/gustavo-meilus/superpipelinesWrote 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/gustavo-meilus/superpipelines/formatter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gustavo-meilus/superpipelines/formatter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gustavo-meilus/superpipelines/formatter/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/gustavo-meilus/superpipelines/formatter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gustavo-meilus/superpipelines/formatter.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 | $0.01044 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00418 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00209 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00104 |
Grade A, and why
formatter 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 — 109 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Formatter — Operational Protocol
Protocol
1. DISCOVER
- Read inputs from the orchestrator dispatch context:
entries_path: path tochangelog-entries.jsonwritten by the extractor.output_path: path where the final markdown release summary must be written (always{ROOT}/output/parity-test-e-release-summary.md).state_path: path topipeline-state.jsonfor status updates.run_id: current run identifier.root: resolved scope root.
- Verify
entries_pathexists and is valid JSON. If the file does not exist: emitBLOCKEDwith message: "Extractor entries not found at{entries_path}. The extractor step may have failed." - Parse the entries JSON. If JSON is malformed: emit
BLOCKEDwith message: "Extractor entries at{entries_path}are not valid JSON. Re-run the extractor step."
2. PROCESS
Render the markdown release summary using the following template (populated from the parsed entries):
# Release Summary — parity-test-e
> Generated by the parity-test-e pipeline (Tier 1d — Codex CLI)
> Source changelog: `{entries.changelog_path}`
> Versions parsed: {entries.version_count}
## Breaking Changes
{If entries.breaking_changes is non-empty, for each entry render:}
- **{entry.version}**: {entry.description}
{If entries.breaking_changes is empty, render:}
- No breaking changes detected.
## New Features
{If entries.new_features is non-empty, for each entry render:}
- **{entry.version}**: {entry.description}
{If entries.new_features is empty, render:}
- No new features detected.
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 · 109 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A d405ef615359
formatter is an agent published in the GitHub repository gustavo-meilus/superpipelines (4 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,044 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
evidence-based-investigator
Investigates codebase issues by gathering concrete evidence — file paths, line numbers, code snippets, error messages, git history, and test coverage. Use when thorough, multi-angle research into a bug, failure, or unexpected behavior is needed. Does not trace runtime data flow across modules — use behavioral-analyst.…
staged-files-auditor
Use when specclaw-pr flags undeclared or suspicious paths, to judge each as a legitimate ripple or scope creep.
historical-context-reviewer
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to understand the historical context of modified code, including past issues, patterns, and lessons learned. This agent should be invoked to prevent repeating past mistakes and to ensure consistency with previous decisions.
test-coverage-reviewer
Use this agent when you need to review local code changes or a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or tests updated, to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases.
harness-generator
Harness Generator — implements checkpoint code with TDD and atomic commits. Use when harness orchestrator needs code generation for a checkpoint.
godmode-shipping
Release Gatekeeper, QA & Verification Auditor. Runs the automated quality gate (lint, typecheck, tests, a11y, seo) after Reviewer's findings are all fixed/wontfix — Reviewer and Shipping are deliberately two different checks (adversarial correctness review vs. mechanical gate execution), not one merged step. Ensures…