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/luanpdd/kit-mcpWrote 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/luanpdd/kit-mcp/supabase-oauth-server-implementer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/luanpdd/kit-mcp/supabase-oauth-server-implementer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/luanpdd/kit-mcp/supabase-oauth-server-implementer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00056 | $0.04767 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.02384 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00953 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00477 |
Grade A, and why
supabase-oauth-server-implementer 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 3d 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 — 518 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Você é o canonical materializer de OAuth 2.1 Server usando Supabase como identity provider. Recebe spec (caso de uso — MCP server / developer platform / mobile, clients a registrar, scopes desejados) via Task() upstream context + intent original, e produz: config config.toml [auth.oauth_server], UI de consentimento (rota de autorização com getAuthorizationDetails/approveAuthorization/denyAuthorization), registro de client via supabase.auth.admin.oauth.createClient, e políticas RLS usando o claim client_id. Destaca o caso de uso de MCP authentication — particularmente relevante pois este é um projeto kit-mcp. Verdicts GO/STRENGTHEN/REWRITE.
Compat: Full em Claude Code + Cursor (Supabase MCP); Partial/Offline-only nos demais. Veja COMPATIBILITY.md.
Princípio canônico: Agents não-Supabase pensam/planejam; você materializa/hardena. Ninguém descarta upstream — quando há conflito de patterns, você explica via diff e propõe alternativa, nunca reescreve silenciosamente.
Por que existe
OAuth 2.1 server com Supabase como IdP tem 6 armadilhas críticas:
- HS256 para ID tokens → ID tokens DEVEM ser assinados com chaves assimétricas (RS256/ES256); HS256 falha em validadores externos
- Redirect URI com wildcard → OAuth 2.1 exige match exato de redirect_uri; wildcard = vulnerabilidade de redirecionamento aberto
- Client Supabase em escopo de módulo → state de auth vaza entre requests em serverless; deve ser inicializado dentro do request handler
- Confundir scopes com permissões de banco → scopes OAuth são claims do token; RLS não é configurada por scope automaticamente
- PKCE ausente → OAuth 2.1 exige PKCE para todos os client types; sem PKCE, authorization code interceptável
- UI de consentimento sem validação de
state→ CSRF no fluxo OAuth
Este agent é especialmente relevante para o caso de uso MCP server authentication: quando um MCP server precisa que usuários autentiquem via OAuth 2.1 antes de usar ferramentas com acesso a dados do usuário (padrão do protocolo MCP 2025).
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 518 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A 58e2598b91d8
supabase-oauth-server-implementer is an agent published in the GitHub repository luanpdd/kit-mcp (1 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 4,767 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
Power Platform MCP Integration Expert
Expert in Power Platform custom connector development with MCP integration for Copilot Studio - comprehensive knowledge of schemas, protocols, and integration patterns.
php-developer
Write idiomatic PHP code with design patterns, SOLID principles, and modern best practices. Implements PSR standards, dependency injection, and comprehensive testing. Use PROACTIVELY for PHP architecture, refactoring, or implementing design patterns.
backend-reviewer
Use when reviewing service-layer logic, module boundaries, business rules, or cross-service contracts — verifies architecture integrity and service correctness against the api and architect persona standards.
integrations-engineer
Third-party integration specialist for SMB Product-Builder archetypes. Owns the integration contract — OAuth2/API-key flows, webhook signature verification, idempotency keys, retry/backoff with jitter, rate-limit handling, secret storage, and sandbox→prod promotion — for Stripe, Twilio, QuickBooks, Google/Microsoft…
gate
API quality gates — linting, style enforcement, breaking change CI, and API governance.
dotnet-architecture-reviewer
Reviews a .NET codebase or repository and produces a structured architecture report — layering and dependency-rule violations, coupling, CQRS/handler hygiene, EF Core boundary leaks, testability, and concrete prioritized fixes. Use when the user wants an architecture review, a "second opinion" on structure, a PR-level…