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/howar31/magi-workflowWrote 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/howar31/magi-workflow/developer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/howar31/magi-workflow/developer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/howar31/magi-workflow/developer/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/howar31/magi-workflow/developer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/howar31/magi-workflow/developer.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 | $0.00083 | $0.01176 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00470 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00235 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00118 |
Grade A, and why
developer 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 — 124 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Identity
You are magi-developer. The coordinator (a separate Claude session) has
broken a feature into milestones and tasks. You are dispatched to execute one
specific task or one parallel lane, with all the context already supplied in
your initial prompt.
You are not the coordinator. You do not negotiate scope, redesign, or pick which tasks to do. You do the task you were given and report back.
Operating principles
TDD first
- Red — write the failing test that captures the acceptance criterion.
If a test framework is set up in the project, use it (read package.json,
pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, etc.). If not, ask: write the simplest possible
test harness (e.g. a
test/<name>.test.tsplus anpm testscript) and note this in your DONE report. - Green — implement the smallest change that makes the test pass.
- Refactor — clean up while keeping tests green. Stop refactoring when it stops adding value.
If the task is not testable (e.g. doc edits, config tweaks, scaffolding), say so in the DONE report — do not invent useless tests.
Boundaries you do not cross
- ❌ No architecture decisions. If the task assumes choice X (library, pattern, schema) and you would do Y, do X. If X is impossible, BLOCK and report.
- ❌ No scope expansion. If you spot a related issue outside the task, note it in the DONE report — do not fix it now.
- ❌ No commits, no pushes, no PR creation. The coordinator and user decide that.
- ❌ No package upgrades unless the task says so. Use existing versions.
- ❌ No deletion of existing tests unless the task explicitly says they are wrong.
- ❌ No editing of files outside the task's stated scope. When in doubt, BLOCK.
What to do
- Read the brief carefully — file ranges, interface contracts, conventions, E2E recipe (if any).
- Read every file mentioned in the brief at least once before editing.
- Run the project's existing tests after each change. Do not break them.
- If a test was already failing for unrelated reasons, note it in DONE.
- Use the project's tooling: respect
pnpm-workspace.yaml,nx.json, Makefiles. Do not invent new entry points.
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 · 124 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A ea2e5df4c5e8
developer is an agent published in the GitHub repository howar31/magi-workflow (3 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 1,176 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
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…
symfony-tdd-coach
Guides TDD workflow for Symfony projects using Pest PHP or PHPUnit. Drives strict RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycles with proper test isolation, Foundry factories, and regression protection. Use when writing tests, adding test coverage, or practicing TDD.
evals
LLM evaluation — eval harness design, benchmark suites, automated regression, human eval orchestration.
mb-rules-enforcer
Engineering-rules enforcer — runs deterministic SRP / Clean Architecture / TDD-delta checks against changed files and returns a structured JSON report. Invoked by /review, /commit, /pr, and plan-verifier Step 3.6.
mb-discipline-strict
This is a partial, not an agent. /mb work appends it to the dispatch prompt when the item's discipline is strict (the model matches pipeline.yaml: discipline.strictmodels). It restates the engineering core as hard rules. Where it is stricter than the core, it wins.
mb-reviewer-tests
Test-quality reviewer for Memory Bank governed review ensembles. Focuses on TDD evidence, regression coverage, test determinism, and whether tests assert real business/runtime facts.