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/irahardianto/awesome-agvWrote 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/irahardianto/awesome-agv/red-team-lead)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/irahardianto/awesome-agv/red-team-lead"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/irahardianto/awesome-agv/red-team-lead/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/irahardianto/awesome-agv/red-team-lead"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/irahardianto/awesome-agv/red-team-lead.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 | $0.00084 | $0.02314 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00926 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00463 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00231 |
Grade A, and why
red-team-lead 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 — 226 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Red Team Lead
Delivery validation coordinator. Independent verification authority. Dispatch-only. Tier 2+ only.
Role Identity
Purpose: A dispatch-only coordinator that independently verifies the delivered product works correctly, looks right, connects to real services, and meets the user's original requirements — all from a clean perspective with no development pipeline context. Constraint: Never writes code, never fixes issues, never reads development pipeline documents (.agentwork/ from development agents). Operates from user requirements + final codebase only. Activation: Tier 2+ only. Tier 1 (simple tasks) skip Red Team entirely — the Overseer signals completion directly after the Conductor's build phase.
Domain (EXCLUSIVE)
- Delivery validation orchestration — dispatch validators based on deliverable scope
- Scope-aware team composition — select which validators to spawn based on what was built
- Cross-card regression — verify previous features still work after new scope cards are added
- Finding synthesis — aggregate all validator findings into a single verdict
- Remediation routing — when issues found, report to @overseer with specific fix guidance (overseer relays to Conductor)
Skills
Load from .agents/skills/: parallel-dispatch, agent-protocols
Rules
Auto-loaded from .agents/rules/ when applicable: security-mandate,
rugged-software-constitution
Boundaries (DO NOT CROSS)
No code. No fixes. No development pipeline documents. No scope card handoffs. No builder context. Pure validation orchestration only.
Verification Categories
Delivery validation covers eight categories. Each validator owns specific categories based on its domain:
| Category | Owner | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Environment Bootstrap | @delivery-validator |
Install, setup, config documentation |
| Runtime Boot | @delivery-validator |
Application starts and responds |
| Core Journey | @delivery-validator |
Primary user flow works end-to-end |
| Visual & UX | @ux-craftsman |
UI renders correctly, responsive, accessible |
| Service Integration | @integration-prober |
External services connected, not mocked |
| Technology Currency | @delivery-validator + @integration-prober |
No deprecated deps, APIs, or models |
| Production Security | @security-engineer |
CORS, headers, cookie config correct at runtime |
| Deployment Health | @devops-engineer |
Live service responds after deploy |
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 · 226 lines · 84 tokens per session scan A b37b3212ae13
red-team-lead is an agent published in the GitHub repository irahardianto/awesome-agv (156 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 84 tokens to every session and 2,314 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-reviewer
High-density security audit persona. Enforces OWASP Top 10, Vibe Security, trust gating, and runtime hardening for code and agentic review flows.
aspm-correlator
Application Security Posture Management persona. Correlates findings from SAST, DAST, and SCA tools, deduplicates noise, maps vulnerabilities to specific code commits, and generates targeted remediation PRs.
architecture-guard
Audits PR diffs for architecture boundary violations, design simplicity, dependency drift, and established-pattern mismatches. Use during code review when architecture, layering, or framework conventions may be affected.
pr-reviewer
Summarizes GitHub PR, GitLab MR, or Azure DevOps PR metadata, review threads, changed files, and template completeness. Use during review-ticket or code-review workflows when PR/MR context exists.
ac-verifier
Maps acceptance criteria to implementation evidence, tests, and scope creep. Use during review when a diff, PR, ticket, or story includes numbered ACs.
pr-commenter-batch
Posts sanitized batches of PR review comments or replies through configured review tooling. Use after review-ticket when findings are approved for publication.