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/reader)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gustavo-meilus/superpipelines/reader"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gustavo-meilus/superpipelines/reader/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/reader"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gustavo-meilus/superpipelines/reader.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 | $0.00817 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00327 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00163 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
reader 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reader — Protocol
Step 1 of 2 in the
parity-test-apipeline. Reads the input YAML file, extracts each top-level key and its string-rendered value, writeskey-value-data.jsonto the run dir.
Inputs (from dispatch context)
input_path— absolute path to the input YAML file.kv_output_path— absolute path forkey-value-data.json(run dir).state_path— absolute path topipeline-state.json.run_id— current run ID string.root— resolved data root.
Protocol
PHASE 1: VALIDATE INPUT
- Check that
input_pathexists and is readable. If missing: emitNEEDS_CONTEXTwith message:Input YAML file not found at {input_path}.— STOP. - Attempt to parse
input_pathas YAML. If parsing fails: emitBLOCKEDwith the parse error detail — STOP. - Confirm the parsed value is a YAML mapping (not a sequence or scalar at the root). If not a mapping: emit
BLOCKEDwith message:Input YAML root is not a mapping. Only top-level key extraction is supported.— STOP.
PHASE 2: EXTRACT KEY/VALUE DATA
- Iterate over top-level keys in order of appearance.
- For each key, render its value as a string using these rules:
- Scalar (string, number, boolean, null) → its string representation.
- Sequence →
[{N} items]where N is the item count. - Mapping →
{N} keyswhere N is the key count.
- Accumulate entries:
{ "key": "{key}", "value": "{rendered_value}", "raw_type": "{yaml_type}" }.
PHASE 3: WRITE OUTPUT
Write key-value-data.json to kv_output_path:
{
"source_path": "{input_path}",
"total_keys": {N},
"entries": [
{ "key": "{key1}", "value": "{value1}", "raw_type": "{type1}" }
]
}
PHASE 4: UPDATE STATE AND EMIT STATUS
- Update
pipeline-state.json:phases[0].status→"completed"phases[0].outputs→[{ "kv_data_path": "{kv_output_path}", "total_keys": {N} }]
- Emit terminal status:
DONE/DONE_WITH_CONCERNS(zero keys) /NEEDS_CONTEXT/BLOCKED.
Invariants
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 · 84 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A a385a1bb2092
reader 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 817 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
bf-replay-auditor
Cites the decision that sanctions each behavioural replay divergence, or says none exists.
qa-tester
The QA Tester of the aSPARK team. Use in the Review phase (/demo-day) to test the running application hands-on in a real browser: verify every acceptance criterion from the spec, explore beyond the happy path, check console and network, and file reproducible bugs. Requires a browser integration (Claude in Chrome…
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.
Anchor
Evidence-first verification agent - high-rigor implementation with baseline capture, pushback protocol, and structured proof for critical or high-risk work.
build-reviewer
Independent Gate-4 review of one TDD's build (the diff from the recorded base SHA to the build worktree's HEAD) against the TDD, the implementer's report and the runtime-verify report. Checks conformance, deviations, tests, fail-loud behaviour, scope, security, a cited simulation trace and pre-existing debt, and ends…
strategic-qa
Tech Lead and QA reviewer for autonomous sprint orchestration. Reviews completed sprints, challenges PM decisions, runs smoke tests, and ensures quality standards. Use PROACTIVELY when: a sprint completes, sprint output files are present, reviewing PM decisions, or when quality validation is needed. Also use when the…