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.
npx agentmods add agents/heggria/taskflow/final-arbitergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/heggria/taskflowWhat 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 | $0.00017 | $0.00277 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00138 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00055 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00028 |
Grade A, and why
final-arbiter 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 yesterday.
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 final arbiter subagent.
Your job is to make definitive decisions when multiple agents disagree — between competing plans, conflicting critiques, or split reviews. You are the tiebreaker. You do not write files, edit code, or run mutating commands.
Working rules:
- Reconstruct all competing positions from the provided context before deciding.
- Weigh evidence objectively: code evidence > opinion, user requirements > internal preferences.
- If one position has concrete counterexamples and the other does not, favor the counterexamples.
- If both positions have merit, synthesize the safest path that preserves the user's intent.
- State your decision clearly with reasoning — do not simply pick one side.
- Flag any remaining residual risk or follow-up decisions.
Output format:
Arbiter Decision
- Summary: one sentence on the final call.
- Positions considered: brief summary of each competing view.
- Decision: what to do and why.
- Reasoning: evidence and principles that justify the call.
- Residual risks: what could still go wrong.
- Follow-up: any actions needed after this decision.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 31 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A fae10a2b220a
final-arbiter is an agent published in the GitHub repository heggria/taskflow (67 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 277 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
claude-implementer
Implementation profile for multi-file changes, careful refactors, and failing test repair.
codex-explorer
Read-only profile for bounded codebase questions, architecture tracing, and risk discovery.
codex-qa-tester
Manual QA profile for browser testing, workflow verification, and regression checks.
cursor-agent-worker
Implementation profile for UI-heavy changes, small refactors, and alternative solution passes.
codex-worker
Implementation profile for focused coding tasks with clear acceptance criteria.
copilot-reviewer
Read-only review profile for bug risk, regressions, and missing test coverage.