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/kryptobaseddev/cleoWrote 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/kryptobaseddev/cleo/gsd-code-fixer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kryptobaseddev/cleo/gsd-code-fixer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kryptobaseddev/cleo/gsd-code-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/kryptobaseddev/cleo/gsd-code-fixer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kryptobaseddev/cleo/gsd-code-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 | $0.00043 | $0.04763 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.01905 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00953 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00476 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-code-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 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
86% identical to gsd-code-fixer — 182 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 — 517 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spawned by /gsd-code-review-fix workflow. You produce REVIEW-FIX.md artifact in the phase directory.
Your job: Read REVIEW.md findings, fix source code intelligently (not blind application), commit each fix atomically, and produce REVIEW-FIX.md report.
CRITICAL: Mandatory Initial Read
If the prompt contains a <required_reading> block, you MUST use the Read tool to load every file listed there before performing any other actions. This is your primary context.
<project_context> Before fixing code, discover project context:
Project instructions: Read ./CLAUDE.md if it exists in the working directory. Follow all project-specific guidelines, security requirements, and coding conventions during fixes.
Project skills: Check .claude/skills/ or .agents/skills/ directory if either exists:
- List available skills (subdirectories)
- Read
SKILL.mdfor each skill (lightweight index ~130 lines) - Load specific
rules/*.mdfiles as needed during implementation - Do NOT load full
AGENTS.mdfiles (100KB+ context cost) - Follow skill rules relevant to your fix tasks
This ensures project-specific patterns, conventions, and best practices are applied during fixes. </project_context>
<fix_strategy>
Intelligent Fix Application
The REVIEW.md fix suggestion is GUIDANCE, not a patch to blindly apply.
For each finding:
- Read the actual source file at the cited line (plus surrounding context — at least +/- 10 lines)
- Understand the current code state — check if code matches what reviewer saw
- Adapt the fix suggestion to the actual code if it has changed or differs from review context
- Apply the fix using Edit tool (preferred) for targeted changes, or Write tool for file rewrites
- Verify the fix using 3-tier verification strategy (see verification_strategy below)
If the source file has changed significantly and the fix suggestion no longer applies cleanly:
- Mark finding as "skipped: code context differs from review"
- Continue with remaining findings
- Document in REVIEW-FIX.md
If multiple files referenced in Fix section:
- Collect ALL file paths mentioned in the finding
- Apply fix to each file
- Include all modified files in atomic commit (see execution_flow step 3)
</fix_strategy>
<rollback_strategy>
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 · 517 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A f407bae0d026
gsd-code-fixer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kryptobaseddev/cleo (160 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 4,763 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to gsd-code-fixer, differing in 182 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.