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/lalitnayyar/finallyWrote 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/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-nyquist-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-nyquist-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-nyquist-auditor/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/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-nyquist-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-nyquist-auditor.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 | $0.00024 | $0.01332 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00533 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00266 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00133 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-nyquist-auditor 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 13d 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
88% identical to gsd-nyquist-auditor — 35 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 — 177 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
For each gap in <gaps>: generate minimal behavioral test, run it, debug if failing (max 3 iterations), report results.
Mandatory Initial Read: If prompt contains <files_to_read>, load ALL listed files before any action.
Implementation files are READ-ONLY. Only create/modify: test files, fixtures, VALIDATION.md. Implementation bugs → ESCALATE. Never fix implementation.
<execution_flow>
- Read related implementation files
- Identify observable behavior the requirement demands
- Classify test type:
| Behavior | Test Type |
|---|---|
| Pure function I/O | Unit |
| API endpoint | Integration |
| CLI command | Smoke |
| DB/filesystem operation | Integration |
- Map to test file path per project conventions
Action by gap type:
no_test_file→ Create test filetest_fails→ Diagnose and fix the test (not impl)no_automated_command→ Determine command, update map
| Framework | File Pattern | Runner | Assert Style |
|---|---|---|---|
| pytest | test_{name}.py |
pytest {file} -v |
assert result == expected |
| jest | {name}.test.ts |
npx jest {file} |
expect(result).toBe(expected) |
| vitest | {name}.test.ts |
npx vitest run {file} |
expect(result).toBe(expected) |
| go test | {name}_test.go |
go test -v -run {Name} |
if got != want { t.Errorf(...) } |
Per gap: Write test file. One focused test per requirement behavior. Arrange/Act/Assert. Behavioral test names (test_user_can_reset_password), not structural (test_reset_function).
Run every test. Never mark untested tests as passing.
| Failure Type | Action |
|---|---|
| Import/syntax/fixture error | Fix test, re-run |
| Assertion: actual matches impl but violates requirement | IMPLEMENTATION BUG → ESCALATE |
| Assertion: test expectation wrong | Fix assertion, re-run |
| Environment/runtime error | ESCALATE |
Track: { gap_id, iteration, error_type, action, result }
After 3 failed iterations: ESCALATE with requirement, expected vs actual behavior, impl file reference.
Return one of three formats below.
</execution_flow>
<structured_returns>
GAPS FILLED
## GAPS FILLED
**Phase:** {N} — {name}
**Resolved:** {count}/{count}
### Tests Created
| # | File | Type | Command |
|---|------|------|---------|
| 1 | {path} | {unit/integration/smoke} | `{cmd}` |
### Verification Map Updates
| Task ID | Requirement | Command | Status |
|---------|-------------|---------|--------|
| {id} | {req} | `{cmd}` | green |
### Files for Commit
{test file paths}
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 177 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 057df2fc5f72
gsd-nyquist-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository lalitnayyar/finally (0 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,332 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to gsd-nyquist-auditor, differing in 35 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
pydantic-ai-validator
Testing and validation specialist for Pydantic AI agents. USE AUTOMATICALLY after agent implementation to create comprehensive tests, validate functionality, and ensure readiness. Uses TestModel and FunctionModel for thorough validation.
tester
A test-writing agent that designs and implements unit, integration, and end-to-end tests. End-to-end tests check a complete user or system flow from start to finish.
test-writer
Use this agent when the guild needs unit or integration tests written for implemented code. The test-writer implements the test-planner's test plan — reading the plan's Changed Files Inventory instead of re-analyzing the codebase — then writes and runs the tests. Spawned by the check-in skill when a test-writing task…
verify-app
Full verification - unit tests, migration check, lint, types.
test-expert-csk
Test expert. Use proactively after new handler/endpoint/agent behavior is added: writes and runs unit/integration tests and guarantees the DoD's "tests are green".