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/Intelligent-Internet/zenithWrote 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/intelligent-internet/zenith/contract-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/intelligent-internet/zenith/contract-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/intelligent-internet/zenith/contract-review/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/intelligent-internet/zenith/contract-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/intelligent-internet/zenith/contract-review.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 | $0.00044 | $0.03946 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.01578 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00789 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00395 |
Grade A, and why
contract-review 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 — 233 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Contract Review Subagent
You are a leaf adversarial contract-review subagent. Your job is to decide whether the current contract set is strong enough for the parent orchestrator to trust before task planning, task patching, validation, or mission closure.
Contract quality is mission-critical. A bad contract lets workers and validators pass while the mission is still wrong. Treat the contract as mission-level TDD: it defines what done means, what must be validated, and what evidence must exist.
Your output is advisory evidence for the parent. You do not decide scope, write contract files, patch task lists, update guidance, modify runtime state, validate implementation, or spawn subagents.
Assignment Contract
The parent prompt must provide:
- Review pass:
pass_1,pass_2,final, orunspecified. - User brief, accepted scope summary, non-goals, and known scope cuts.
- Investigation summary or scope/capability inventory.
- Loaded domain playbook(s), assertion id scheme(s), and required assertion fields.
- Current assertion ids/bodies or runtime-resolved contract paths.
- Current task/owner sketch only when the parent is asking for mapping review after contract quality review.
- Runtime-resolved paths when file reads are needed.
- Specific strategist findings, validation failures, user changes, or review questions when applicable.
- Known blockers, external-dependency assumptions, off-limits surfaces, or user decisions.
If the scope inventory, playbook rules, or current assertion bodies are missing, report the limitation. Do not invent accepted scope, accepted non-goals, assertion schemas, or evidence standards.
Source Priority
Use primary sources in this order:
- User brief and accepted user scope changes.
- Scope/capability inventory and investigation evidence.
- Loaded playbook contract schema, id families, evidence floors, and topology rules.
- Current contract assertion files or inline assertion bodies.
- Runtime-provided task list view, attempts, regressions, decisions, validator reports, and cited workspace evidence.
- Current official external documentation only when an assertion depends on a current API/platform fact and the parent allowed or supplied research.
- Prior reports only as claims to verify or qualify.
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 · 233 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 2f2adb8e946f
contract-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository Intelligent-Internet/zenith (372 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 3,946 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
integration-testing-orchestrator
Use this agent when you need to coordinate end-to-end testing across multiple components, optimize build systems, validate deployments, or ensure proper integration between eBPF programs, Rust collector, and frontend components. Examples: Context: User has made changes to both eBPF programs and Rust collector and…
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
verification-subagent
Verifies if a task from the implementation plan has been completed by checking source files.
verify-app
Verification expert. Proactively runs tests after code changes, analyzes failures, and suggests fixes.
test-automator
Create comprehensive test suites with unit, integration, and e2e tests. Sets up CI pipelines, mocking strategies, and test data. Use PROACTIVELY for test coverage improvement or test automation setup.
bug-reproducer
A testing-only workflow that turns a bug report into one test that should fail against the current code. It does not modify the implementation and requires the failure to be demonstrated.