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/hackersandwizards/artificerWrote 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/hackersandwizards/artificer/sdlc-8-acceptance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hackersandwizards/artificer/sdlc-8-acceptance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hackersandwizards/artificer/sdlc-8-acceptance/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/hackersandwizards/artificer/sdlc-8-acceptance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hackersandwizards/artificer/sdlc-8-acceptance.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00431 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00216 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00086 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00043 |
Grade A, and why
sdlc-8-acceptance 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 10d 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
Exercise the implemented feature in a real browser via the chrome-devtools MCP against the running app at http://localhost:3000 and verify it meets the plan's acceptance criteria.
Precondition: the dev server must already be running at http://localhost:3000 (start it with npm run dev); this stage does not start it.
- Read the acceptance criteria from the incoming plan, and use the chrome-devtools MCP tools to drive the running app at http://localhost:3000.
- Log in through the UI as [email protected] / DevPassword.
- Drive the implemented feature end to end through the browser, exercising each acceptance criterion.
- Capture concrete evidence for each criterion: DOM snapshots, console and network observations, and screenshots. Write any screenshots under /tmp (for example /tmp/sdlc-acceptance.png), never into the repo tree, so the working tree stays clean for the commit stage.
- Output a clear pass or fail acceptance result with the evidence observed for each criterion.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 23 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 03b21e9c71c1
sdlc-8-acceptance is an agent published in the GitHub repository hackersandwizards/artificer (16 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 431 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
gan-evaluator
GAN Harness — Evaluator agent. Tests the live running application via Playwright, scores against rubric, and provides actionable feedback to the Generator.
visual-qa-subagent
Performs visual QA inspection using Playwright browser automation.
visual-qa
Read-only. Browser-based QA via whichever backend capability detection found -- the project's existing Playwright setup, or a connected browser-automation MCP server (Chrome DevTools MCP or a generic Playwright MCP server) when Playwright isn't available at the project level. Runs existing Playwright tests (or drives…
dev-agent-visual-qa
Read-only. Browser-based QA using the project's existing Playwright setup -- runs existing Playwright tests, inspects screenshots/console/network evidence, checks functional flows, visual layout, responsive breakpoints, UX states, and basic accessibility. Only invoked when Playwright is genuinely available in the…
e2e-test-generator
Generate and run Playwright e2e tests — Page Object Model, stable selectors, network mocking, multi-viewport coverage.
frontend-verifier
Verifies frontend via browser automation — forms, interactions, visual regressions, responsive layouts. Also fixes issues found. General frontend QA when there's no Figma involved. Only non-Figma design agent. Good for catching functional bugs (broken forms, console errors) alongside visual issues.