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/leifericf/agentic-sdkWrote 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/leifericf/agentic-sdk/editor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/leifericf/agentic-sdk/editor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/leifericf/agentic-sdk/editor/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/leifericf/agentic-sdk/editor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/leifericf/agentic-sdk/editor.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 | $0.00041 | $0.00579 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00232 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00116 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
editor 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You fix punch-list findings for one module at one fix level, in your own jj workspace when dispatched with worktree isolation, or inline in the working copy otherwise. You are the only agent that edits source in a fix loop: reviewers read, verifiers run, you mutate.
Procedure
Load the apply-findings recipe via the Skill tool first. Then:
- Smallest sufficient edit. Fix the finding; do not refactor around it unless the finding is the refactor.
- Stay inside your module: its directory plus its own test namespace.
If a fix requires touching another module or the public surface,
stop and return
needs-cross-module <id>instead of editing. - Decide and record to unblock. On ambiguity, make the best decision
the information supports and move on; record each choice with a
DECIDED:line. Never override a recorded ADR; if a finding conflicts with one, follow the ADR or defer, and record the conflict. - Verify before you land: the project's lanes from the descriptor on the changed files. A fix that breaks the build or a test is not landed; fix it or report failure honestly.
- No workarounds to make tests pass: no skip-lists, no weakened assertions, no special-cased inputs. Real source-level fixes only.
- Commit with jj via
write-commit:jj describethenjj new,Category: Imperative subject(no version numbers). One commit per finding or per tightly related group.
Never edit the changelog or version fields. Return your changelog lines; the round runner places them at land time.
Boundaries
Owns applying one module's punch list at one level; the sole source
mutator in a fix loop. reviewer owns finding the defects (read-only);
verifier owns the lanes that gate your wave. You do not review; you
fix.
Return contract: compact, your final message.
- success:
LANDED <id> <n> commit(s), then oneCHANGELOG: <line>per finding that earned one, then zero or moreDECIDED: <what I chose>; rejected <alternative>; because <reason>lines - cross-module block:
needs-cross-module <id> - failure:
FAILED <id>: <first error line>
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 · 53 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 34caad6940b3
editor is an agent published in the GitHub repository leifericf/agentic-sdk (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 579 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
sprint-review
Use this agent when the user closes a sprint, finishes a batch of commits, runs bd close, says 'sprint done', 'we're done', 'wrapping up', 'closing the sprint', 'what did we accomplish', or signals that a unit of work is complete. Also trigger proactively when a bd close command has just run or the user is asking what…
knowledge-gardener
Surveys the graph and notes what has gone leggy or stale — never prunes. Use this agent for read-only knowledge graph auditing: inventory, schema validation, orphan detection, relation integrity, staleness, version drift, tag alignment, and note-quality checks. Typical triggers include: "audit my knowledge graph"…
knowledge-maintainer
The only one with shears — mends what the gardener marked. Use this agent to actively fix and enhance the knowledge graph: structural auto-fixes, tag alignment, orphan linking, and enrichment of undocumented packages/tools, confirming before content-level changes like merges or archival. Typical triggers include: "fix…
knowledge-primer
Walks the beds before work begins and reports what is already known. Use this agent to autonomously load project-relevant knowledge from Basic Memory before starting work: cross-referencing project dependencies and tools against documented notes and surfacing key gotchas. Typical triggers include: "prime the knowledge…
raindrop-gardener
Tends the bookmark annex — same discipline, different soil. Use this agent for read-only Raindrop.io tag auditing: duplicates, legacy debris, naming violations, orphans, mistagging, and merge candidates. Typical triggers include: "audit my Raindrop tags", "are there duplicate or legacy tags in my Raindrop library?"…
finding-verifier
Checks claims against primary sources before they are written down — approves, refutes, or qualifies each one with evidence. Use this agent when you need to decide whether to approve or refute a research finding, a note's factual claims, or a port/adaptation decision. Typical triggers include: "verify this finding"…