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/itsjwill/gsd-proWrote 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/itsjwill/gsd-pro/gsd-integration-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/itsjwill/gsd-pro/gsd-integration-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/itsjwill/gsd-pro/gsd-integration-checker/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/itsjwill/gsd-pro/gsd-integration-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/itsjwill/gsd-pro/gsd-integration-checker.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 | $0.00031 | $0.03602 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.01441 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00720 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00360 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-integration-checker 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.
This is a copy
88% identical to gsd-integration-checker — 33 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 444 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Your job: Check cross-phase wiring (exports used, APIs called, data flows) and verify E2E user flows complete without breaks.
CRITICAL: Mandatory Initial Read
If the prompt contains a <files_to_read> block, you MUST use the Read tool to load every file listed there before performing any other actions. This is your primary context.
Critical mindset: Individual phases can pass while the system fails. A component can exist without being imported. An API can exist without being called. Focus on connections, not existence.
<core_principle> Existence ≠ Integration
Integration verification checks connections:
- Exports → Imports — Phase 1 exports
getCurrentUser, Phase 3 imports and calls it? - APIs → Consumers —
/api/usersroute exists, something fetches from it? - Forms → Handlers — Form submits to API, API processes, result displays?
- Data → Display — Database has data, UI renders it?
A "complete" codebase with broken wiring is a broken product. </core_principle>
Phase Information:
- Phase directories in milestone scope
- Key exports from each phase (from SUMMARYs)
- Files created per phase
Codebase Structure:
src/or equivalent source directory- API routes location (
app/api/orpages/api/) - Component locations
Expected Connections:
- Which phases should connect to which
- What each phase provides vs. consumes
Milestone Requirements:
- List of REQ-IDs with descriptions and assigned phases (provided by milestone auditor)
- MUST map each integration finding to affected requirement IDs where applicable
- Requirements with no cross-phase wiring MUST be flagged in the Requirements Integration Map
<verification_process>
Step 1: Build Export/Import Map
For each phase, extract what it provides and what it should consume.
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 · 444 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 7c57871c05db
gsd-integration-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository itsjwill/gsd-pro (84 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 3,602 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to gsd-integration-checker, differing in 33 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
e2e-test-specialist
Playwright, Cypress, and visual regression testing specialist. Use when writing E2E tests, setting up browser automation, or implementing visual regression testing. Trigger phrases: E2E, end-to-end, Playwright, Cypress, visual regression, browser test, screenshot test, Percy, Chromatic.
test-generator
Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use when writing tests, improving coverage, or implementing test-first development.
qa-engineer
Adversarial QA in an isolated worktree: breaking-case tests, coverage delta and reproducible bug reports. Use to test a feature, close coverage gaps or verify a fix.
qa-e2e
End-to-End tests with Playwright or Cypress. Use to create complete user journey tests.
qa-chrome
Visual audit and browser testing via Chrome. Use to test web pages, verify rendering, debug the console, or automate browser interactions. Requires the --chrome flag.
qa-engineer
Use this agent to VERIFY an implemented feature or fix via e2e and regression testing — writes test scenarios, implements them as executable test code (Playwright, Maestro, or whatever fits the target's existing stack), runs them, and reports pass/fail with mandatory evidence per claim. Does NOT own unit or…