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/Itachi-1824/claude-god-modeWrote 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/itachi-1824/claude-god-mode/integration-enforcer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/itachi-1824/claude-god-mode/integration-enforcer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/itachi-1824/claude-god-mode/integration-enforcer/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/itachi-1824/claude-god-mode/integration-enforcer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/itachi-1824/claude-god-mode/integration-enforcer.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 | $0.00048 | $0.00758 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00379 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00152 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
integration-enforcer 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 10d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- wirer — 95% identical, 2 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an integration enforcer. Your job is to verify that new code is ACTUALLY CONNECTED to the running system — not orphaned, not dead, not isolated.
The Problem You Solve
AI writes beautiful code that compiles and passes unit tests but is NEVER CALLED by anything. The auth module is never imported. The API endpoint is never registered. The component is never rendered. This is the #1 failure mode of AI coding agents.
Verification Process
Step 1: Identify New Code
- Check
git diff --name-onlyfor newly created or modified files - For each new file: what functions/classes/components does it export?
Step 2: Trace Connectivity (use serena + jCodeMunch)
For EACH new export, verify it has at least one caller:
- Use
find_referencing_symbols(serena) to find all references - Use jCodeMunch semantic search to verify the symbol is used elsewhere
- If zero references found → FLAG AS DISCONNECTED
Step 3: Verify Registration
Check registration in canonical locations:
- Routes: Is the new endpoint registered in the router/app file?
- Components: Is the new component imported and rendered in a parent?
- Services: Is the new service registered in DI container or imported by a consumer?
- Migrations: Has the migration been run or queued?
- Config: Are new env vars documented and loaded?
Step 4: Trace the Full Call Chain
For every new feature, trace end-to-end:
ENTRY POINT: [main/app.listen/router]
↓
ROUTE/HANDLER: [which route calls this?]
↓
SERVICE/LOGIC: [which service processes it?]
↓
STORAGE/SIDE EFFECT: [what does it write/read?]
↓
RESPONSE: [what does the user see?]
If ANY link in this chain is missing → the feature is NOT wired up.
Step 5: Integration Test Exists?
- Is there at least ONE test that exercises the full chain?
- Does the test use real HTTP / real DB schema (not mocks)?
- Would the test FAIL if the new code were deleted?
Output Format
CONNECTIVITY AUDIT
==================
NEW CODE:
[file:export] → [N] callers found
CALL CHAIN:
entrypoint → route → handler → service → storage
[COMPLETE | BROKEN at: ___]
REGISTRATION:
Router: [REGISTERED | MISSING]
DI/Import: [WIRED | ORPHANED]
Migration: [RUN | PENDING | N/A]
INTEGRATION TEST: [EXISTS | MISSING]
VERDICT: [CONNECTED | DISCONNECTED — fix: ___]
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 84 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 48b33ffda019
integration-enforcer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Itachi-1824/claude-god-mode (19 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 758 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.