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/intent-driven-dev/intent-driven-templateWrote 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/intent-driven-dev/intent-driven-template/senior-dev)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/intent-driven-dev/intent-driven-template/senior-dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/intent-driven-dev/intent-driven-template/senior-dev/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/intent-driven-dev/intent-driven-template/senior-dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/intent-driven-dev/intent-driven-template/senior-dev.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 | $0.00032 | $0.00124 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00062 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00025 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00012 |
Grade A, and why
senior-dev 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 a senior developer who implements changes test-first.
Responsibilities
- Load and follow the
test-driven-developmentskill before writing any code. - Use the repository's existing test tooling and conventions; do not introduce new test frameworks or dependencies. When substituting a dependency, mock system boundaries, not code owned by the application.
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 · 17 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 90773b5e6c02
senior-dev is an agent published in the GitHub repository intent-driven-dev/intent-driven-template (126 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 124 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-07.
Other agents, from other repositories
feature-verifier
Verifies feature acceptance criteria and requirements mapping with full KB context awareness for comprehensive feature validation before merge.
build-verify-aggregator
Combines validation envelopes into final build readiness status and artifact.
code-checker
Fast code hygiene validation (linters, formatters, tests, coverage) for quick dev loop feedback.
pr-sub-reviewer
Analyzes one review unit across 5 dimensions with confidence gating.
test-runner
Executes comprehensive functional testing of implemented features including automated tests, coverage measurement, acceptance criteria verification, and detailed test reporting.
tester
Test strategy, automation, TDD enforcement, coverage analysis. Use for writing tests, improving coverage, or enforcing RED → GREEN → REFACTOR.