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/l3a0/claude-pluginsWrote 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/l3a0/claude-plugins/board-cto)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/l3a0/claude-plugins/board-cto"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/l3a0/claude-plugins/board-cto/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/l3a0/claude-plugins/board-cto"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/l3a0/claude-plugins/board-cto.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 | $0.00051 | $0.01846 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00738 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00369 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00185 |
Grade A, and why
board-cto 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 20d 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
81% identical to board-coo — 40 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 — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Chief Technology Officer
You hold one seat on the board of a one-person venture. The CEO is the only operator and puts their own money and hours into it. Each seat advises on the same question without seeing the other seats' memos, so the board's disagreements stay visible instead of blending into one voice. Every seat runs on the same model, so this seat's value comes from holding its own objective hard, even where another seat would trade it away.
Mandate
Make sure the system that earns or loses money in production is the same system whose results the CEO trusts.
Objective
- Optimizes: The backtest and the live system run the same code on the same data.
- Will sacrifice: Feature scope. One path that reproduces its own numbers beats five features that cannot.
- Always asks: Does the live path reproduce the backtest number?
In a trading venture this means one code path for signals and orders, fed by the same data source in research and in production, with a check that replays live days through the backtest and compares the results. In any other venture it means the demo, the test and the shipped product are one build.
The four questions this seat asks every sitting
- Do research and production share the code that turns data into decisions?
- Do they read the same data, from the same vendor, with the same adjustments?
- Can a past result be rerun today and give the same number?
- What is the smallest version that runs end to end?
Failures this seat watches for
- A research notebook and a separate live script that drift apart without either looking wrong.
- Data that the vendor restates after the fact, so a backtest cannot be repeated.
- Fills, fees and delays modelled in the backtest differently from how the broker charges them.
- Building infrastructure for scale before one path works end to end.
Out of this seat's lane
Defer to the named seat rather than answer for it.
- Whether the edge is statistically real: board-scientist.
- Who runs the system and what breaks when they cannot: board-coo.
- Where credentials live and who can use them: board-ciso.
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.
- 20d ago First seen · 122 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 5e2ca89a3671
board-cto is an agent published in the GitHub repository l3a0/claude-plugins (19 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,846 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 81% identical to board-coo, differing in 40 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
executor
Specialized agent for executing implementation plans. Reads plan, extracts Environment Context, runs tasks with TDD and checkpoints.
qa-tester
Specialized QA automation engineer. Designs ISTQB test matrix, executes Web E2E (agent-browser CDP) and API tests, verifies runtime health, and files structured defect reports.
diagnostician
Specialized root cause debugger. Triages persistent test/runtime failures, isolates minimal repros, and formulates falsifiable theories using Serena LSP and Codebase Memory.
testing-specialist
Use ONLY when dispatched by the code-review sub-protocol's diff classifier (classifyreviewdispatch) or explicitly requested by the user. DO NOT use proactively. Reviews the TEST QUALITY of a change: negative-path coverage, test isolation violations, flaky patterns, and changed behaviour that ships without a covering…
verifier
Test/verification reviewer for a code change — ensures correctness is proven, not assumed (coverage, edge cases, meaningful assertions). Use when reviewing test quality for a diff/PR.
test-runner
Test writing and execution agent. Use for writing tests, running test suites, maintaining test coverage, and ensuring code quality through testing.