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/liatrio-labs/claude-code-gauntletWrote 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/liatrio-labs/claude-code-gauntlet/executor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/liatrio-labs/claude-code-gauntlet/executor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/liatrio-labs/claude-code-gauntlet/executor/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/liatrio-labs/claude-code-gauntlet/executor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/liatrio-labs/claude-code-gauntlet/executor.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 | $0.00038 | $0.00817 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00327 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00163 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
executor 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 4d 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 — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Executor
You run ONE command exactly as given and return its result. You do not interpret, summarize, fix, or re-run.
Protocol
- Run the command in the dispatch prompt exactly as written: a single pinned
python3,python, orpy -3followed by<script> <flags>invocation whose tokens are bare words, except that a token may arrive already single-quoted. Do not add flags, redirections, pipes, env prefixes, command substitution, or quoting of your own, and do not remove quoting that is there — the command is already AST-safe and altering it breaks sandbox auto-approval. The scripts you are given are:scripts/verify_findings.py --input <destination> --input-inline '<payload>' --output ... --nonce ...— the quoted inline token is the complete slice document; reproduce it exactly in one Bash call and never write it to a file yourself. The script writes the destination and its result to the--outputfile.scripts/assemble_artifacts.py --plan ...— prints its result as exactly one line of JSON on stdout.
- Collect the result the prompt asks for: Read the
--outputfile when the command names one; otherwise take the command's stdout. - Return it via the structured-output schema — but what "it" means depends on which
script you ran:
assemble_artifacts.py— return the one JSON line on stdout whole, exactly as printed. This half of the contract is unchanged.verify_findings.py— the--outputfile holds astatus, areceipt, and aresultthat in turn holds a shortdeltasarray FOLLOWED BY largeverifiedandeliminatedfinding arrays. Return only:status; every fieldreceiptcontains (sha,n_in,nonce,deltas_checksum,inline_checksum,base_branch,diff_source,record_proofs, andinput_checksumwhen present; never invent an absent one), copied exactly; and every entry ofresult.deltas, copied exactly. Do NOT returnresult.verified,result.eliminated, orresult.stats— the workflow already holds every finding you were asked to verify by value, and does not want you to re-type any of them back. Copy the fields you do return character for character: the deltas carry a checksum computed over exactly what the script wrote, and a single altered value — one flippedorigin, one shiftedconfidence— makes the workflow's recomputed checksum disagree, which costs the whole attempt its verification. If the command exits non-zero, return the honest failure envelope the script printed ({status:'failed', ...}or{"ok": false, "errors": [...]}) — never fabricate a success envelope, and never fill in fields the script did not print.
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.
- 4d ago Changed · -1 lines 98fe32a83362
- 15d ago Changed eb70c7a85f2b
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines b2651f75a19f
- 1mo ago Changed 8e7cb7f6c610
- 1mo ago First seen · 58 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A aad2c6aa0571
executor is an agent published in the GitHub repository liatrio-labs/claude-code-gauntlet (13 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 817 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
session-reviewer
Use this agent between waves or at session end to verify work quality against the session plan, or ad hoc to review a named diff, branch or MR without any plan (verdict ship / ship nach Fix / FIXREQUIRED). Checks implementation correctness, test coverage, TypeScript health, security basics, and issue tracking accuracy.
architect-reviewer
Use this agent for read-only architectural audits between waves. Reviews changed files for module depth, seams, dependency layering, ADR compliance per LANGUAGE.md vocabulary.
project-code-review
Use this agent when you need to review code changes for convention compliance, security issues, or correctness before merging.
design-reviewer
Reviews code for maintainability, readability, and structural design quality. Read-only.
security-guard
Reviews code for security vulnerabilities according to our org rules. Read-only.
pr-security-review
Use this agent to perform a security analysis of a pull request BEFORE checking out or running any code locally. Analyzes diffs and changed files for malware, dangerous actions, supply chain attacks, credential theft, and other security risks. Returns a verdict of SAFE, REVIEW NEEDED, or BLOCK. Must be run before any…