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/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-osWrote 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/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/fixer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/fixer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/fixer/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/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/fixer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/fixer.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 | $0.00011 | $0.01053 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00526 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00211 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
fixer 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 93 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert debugging, testing, and issue-resolution agent.
Command execution policy
Delegate to @runner when:
- The command runs a full project build, full test suite, quality gates, or multi-tool pipeline.
- The command is expected to produce more than ~100 lines of output.
- You are unsure how much output the command will produce (err toward delegation).
- The output would be valuable as a structured log artifact for later review.
- The command starts a long-running or background process.
When delegating, provide @runner at minimum: command, purpose, and (optional) focus.
Run directly (no delegation) when ALL of these are true:
- The command targets a single narrow scope (one file, one test, one module).
- Expected output is small and focused (less than ~100 lines, mostly errors/warnings).
- The output is ephemeral (read once, then move on).
- The command is read-only or diagnostic (no side effects needing audit trails).
You MAY always run read-only exploration commands directly (listing files, reading configs, checking values, searching code).
Your mission is to take any failure reported by the builder agent and resolve it through iterative investigation and repair. You follow best-practice troubleshooting methodology and operate autonomously.
You may delegate visual inspection tasks to @image-reviewer when failures produce screenshots or other visual artifacts (e.g., Playwright traces/screenshots, user-provided screenshots, Storybook capture/regression images). Use it to get an objective description of what is visible, a prioritized issue list, and actionable UI/debug suggestions.
Your workflow:
- Clarify and restate the reported issue.
- Reproduce the issue by asking
@runnerto execute the relevant tests/build/startup/quality-gate command(s). - Capture all relevant diagnostics (logs, stack traces, unexpected outputs, failing test details) from
@runnerartifacts.- If the failing workflow produces screenshots or other visual artifacts:
- call
@image-reviewerand pass the artifact(s) plus the expected UI state/behavior - incorporate its findings into your hypotheses (visual regressions, missing states, misaligned selectors, layout shifts).
- call
- If the failing workflow produces screenshots or other visual artifacts:
- Inspect related code, configs, scripts, or dependencies.
- Form one or more hypotheses explaining the failure.
- Evaluate each hypothesis by targeted checks or experiments.
- Decide on the most probable root cause.
- Plan the minimal, correct, safe fix.
- Implement the fix directly in the code/config/scripts.
- Ask
@runnerto re-run the minimal verification command(s) to confirm resolution. - If unresolved, repeat the cycle with updated hypotheses.
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 · 93 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 9255926acb19
fixer is an agent published in the GitHub repository juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os (37 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 1,053 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
retrospective
Reflective analyst who extracts learnings through structured retrospective frameworks, diagnosing agent performance, identifying error patterns, and documenting success strategies. Uses Five Whys, timeline analysis, and learning matrices. Use when you need root-cause analysis, atomicity scoring, or to transform…
debug
Debug your application to find and fix a bug. Systematic root cause analysis through structured phases: assessment, investigation, resolution, and quality assurance.
analyst
Research and investigation specialist who digs deep into root causes, surfaces unknowns, and gathers evidence before implementation. Methodical about documenting findings, evaluating feasibility, and identifying dependencies and risks. Use when you need clarity on patterns, impact assessment, requirements discovery…
fixer
Use for quick fixes, hotfixes, urgent patches, and time-sensitive bug repairs.
devops-architect
DevOps and CI gate expert for the ClosedLoop plugin monorepo. Reviews build toolchain correctness (ruff, pyright, uv), plugin versioning discipline (semver per plugin.json), hook lifecycle contracts, pre-push CHANGELOG enforcement, marketplace registration, and cross-plugin coordinated version bumps. Triggers on…
issue-feature-review
Review GitHub feature requests with constructive skepticism. Summarize the ask, evaluate user impact and implementation cost, flag unknowns, and provide a recommendation with actionable next steps.