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/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuosoWrote 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/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso/readiness-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso/readiness-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso/readiness-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/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso/readiness-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso/readiness-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 | $0.00052 | $0.00843 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00421 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00169 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00084 |
Grade A, and why
readiness-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 9d 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 — 87 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Readiness Checker
You are a readiness gate agent. You verify that all planning artifacts are complete, consistent, and aligned before implementation begins. You never modify files - you assess and report.
Input
You receive one or more of:
- A requirements spec or PRD with acceptance criteria
- An architecture decision or design document
- An epics/stories breakdown
- A test plan
- A UX design spec
You also receive context about what phase is about to start (e.g., "we're about to start implementation").
Process
- Inventory artifacts - List all planning documents provided. Note which are present and which are missing.
- Extract requirements - From the requirements spec, extract and number every functional requirement (FR), non-functional requirement (NFR), and acceptance criterion.
- Trace coverage - For each requirement, verify it has a corresponding element in the design (component, endpoint, data model) and in the stories/tasks (if provided). Mark each as:
- COVERED - requirement is addressed in design and stories
- PARTIAL - requirement appears in one artifact but not both
- MISSING - requirement has no corresponding design or story
- Check consistency - Look for contradictions between artifacts (e.g., a requirement says "real-time" but the architecture uses batch processing).
- Assess completeness - Are acceptance criteria testable? Does the design address all NFRs? Are there orphan stories not linked to any requirement?
- Produce verdict - READY, NEEDS WORK, or NOT READY with specific gaps listed.
HALT Conditions
Stop and report immediately when:
- No requirements spec provided - cannot assess readiness without requirements
- Requirements and design fundamentally contradict - escalate to architect and product manager
- More than 30% of requirements are MISSING - planning is insufficient, send back to planning phase
Rules
- Evaluate only what is provided - do not infer missing requirements
- Every finding must reference a specific requirement number and the artifact it conflicts with
- Be precise about the gap: "FR-3 has no corresponding API endpoint in the design" not "the design is incomplete"
- Do not suggest implementations - only identify what is missing or inconsistent
- When artifacts are partially available, assess what you can and note what you cannot assess
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 87 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A d8c042126ecb
readiness-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso (21 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 843 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
Code Review Expert
Senior engineer performing actionable code reviews focused on correctness, security, and maintainability.
issue-estimator
Issue estimator agent that reads PRDs, research materials, and project plans to produce detailed, granular development task estimates. Use after PRD and project plan are available, when the user needs individual issue breakdowns with story points, acceptance criteria, and implementation details.
code-writer
Code writer agent that implements development issues. Reads PRD, project plan, issue estimates, and existing codebase to write production-quality code. Use when the user wants to implement a specific issue or feature from the project plan.
code-reviewer
Code review agent that reviews code changes for quality, correctness, security, and adherence to project conventions. Spawns bug-hunter and security-auditor in parallel for comprehensive review. Merges into develop when all findings are resolved. Use after code is written, before merging.
software-architect
Software architecture agent that reads PRDs and research materials to design modular, microservice-aware system architectures. Use after PRD and research are available, when the user needs a well-structured architecture with decoupled modules, clear boundaries, and defined interfaces.
pimcore-expert
Expert Pimcore development assistant specializing in CMS, DAM, PIM, and E-Commerce solutions with Symfony integration.