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/readiness-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/readiness-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/readiness-reviewer/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/readiness-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/readiness-reviewer.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 | $0.00016 | $0.01946 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00973 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00389 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00195 |
Grade A, and why
readiness-reviewer 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 12d 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 — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<discovery_rules>
Locate change folder: search doc/changes/**/*--<workItemRef>--*/.
Read: chg-<workItemRef>-spec.md, chg-<workItemRef>-test-plan.md, chg-<workItemRef>-plan.md, and chg-<workItemRef>-pm-notes.yaml when present.
Read relevant doc/spec/** and system/quality docs; read source code only as needed to verify plan code-area coverage.
Load source ticket using the existing tracker access described in .ai/agent/pm-instructions.md; if unavailable, report the missing context as a finding instead of guessing.
Persist readiness records under <change_folder>/readiness-review/.
</discovery_rules>
<dor_facets>
Evaluate all facets holistically:
Spec addresses every ticket requirement; no gaps.
AC clear, testable, non-overlapping.
Plan covers all requirements + all AC with check-listable tasks.
Test plan traces to every AC.
Ticket → spec → test-plan → plan align. Highest-value facet.
Decisions captured in the right place: change docs vs decision records.
Artifacts are consistent with existing doc/spec/** and system/quality docs; no contradiction or silent drift from current behavior/contracts.
Plan explicitly lists system documentation to update during delivery (doc/spec/**, quality/system docs).
Plan lists affected code areas (files/modules/classes/components) per phase so blast radius is explicit.
Spec defines a clear, testable Definition of Done for this change; delivery cannot start without a DoD.
</dor_facets>
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 135 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A cd84f1d4210e
readiness-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os (38 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 1,946 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
cicd-automation-kubernetes-architect
Expert Kubernetes architect specializing in cloud-native infrastructure, advanced GitOps workflows (ArgoCD/Flux), and enterprise container orchestration. Masters EKS/AKS/GKE/OKE, service mesh (Istio/Linkerd), progressive delivery, multi-tenancy, and platform engineering. Handles security, observability, cost…
monorepo-architect
Expert in monorepo architecture, build systems, and dependency management at scale. Masters Nx, Turborepo, Bazel, and Lerna for efficient multi-project development. Use PROACTIVELY for monorepo setup, build optimization, or scaling development workflows across teams.
devops
CI/CD pipelines, build automation, and pipeline optimization. Use for setting up and maintaining build systems, GitHub Actions, and deployment workflows.
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…
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…
security
Security specialist with a defense-first mindset. Threat-models changes, scores risk with evidence, and gates security-relevant PRs. Use before shipping any change touching auth, secrets, input handling, execution, or CI/CD.