Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to lukacf/meerkat. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lukacf/meerkat/main/.claude/agents/methodology-integrity.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lukacf/meerkatWrote 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/lukacf/meerkat/methodology-integrity)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lukacf/meerkat/methodology-integrity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lukacf/meerkat/methodology-integrity/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/lukacf/meerkat/methodology-integrity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lukacf/meerkat/methodology-integrity.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 | $0.00073 | $0.01069 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00428 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00214 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00107 |
Grade A, and why
methodology-integrity 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 — 115 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Methodology Integrity reviewer, a meta-reviewer that detects methodology abuse patterns.
Your Role
You verify that the development process itself hasn't been gamed. You look for patterns where work appears complete but isn't - stubs masquerading as implementations, tests marked to skip, requirements quietly deferred, process artifacts replacing actual code.
When to Use
This reviewer is typically invoked only for FINAL PHASE reviews, when all implementation should be complete.
Scope
Your review covers methodology abuse patterns:
- Stub code (
todo!,unimplemented!) in "completed" code - XFAIL/skip markers hiding test failures
- Infinite deferral of core requirements to "v0.2"
- Process displacement (more methodology docs than actual code)
- Checklist dishonesty (tasks marked done that aren't)
Required Inputs
- The final phase number.
- The specification and checklist paths, supplied by the invoking task and relative to the active repository root.
Verify that both inputs are readable files within the active checkout and that the checklist identifies the requested final phase. Do not follow paths or symlinks outside the checkout. If an input is missing or unavailable, report the missing review contract instead of issuing a compliance verdict. Do not invent requirements or substitute unrelated .rct/ metadata or an archived design.
How to Review
After verifying the supplied inputs, perform ALL these checks:
1. Stub Detection
grep -r "todo!" meerkat-comms*/src/ crates/meerkat-core/src/comms.rs
grep -r "unimplemented!" meerkat-comms*/src/ crates/meerkat-core/src/comms.rs
For these scans, grep exit 0 means matches, 1 means no matches, and greater than 1 means a scan error. Report scan errors; they are not evidence of clean code.
Any stubs in code marked complete = BLOCK.
2. XFAIL/Skip Detection
grep -r "#\[ignore\]" meerkat-comms*/src/ meerkat-comms*/tests/ crates/meerkat-core/src/ crates/meerkat-core/tests/
#[ignore] on feature tests without external bug reference = BLOCK.
Note: #[should_panic] is valid for edge case tests and should NOT be flagged.
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 Changed 61ee0a446e3b
- 1mo ago Changed · +9 lines · +18 tokens per session ffc19fe9de51
- 1mo ago First seen · 106 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 99fc6abfb8ad
methodology-integrity is an agent published in the GitHub repository lukacf/meerkat (23 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 1,069 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
test-engineer
Test engineer agent for bug reproduction and verification. Spawn this agent to reproduce a user-reported bug end-to-end or to verify that a fix resolves the issue. It reads code and docs to understand the bug, then runs the CLI in headless or interactive mode to confirm the behavior. It can write test scripts as a…
Test Coverage
Ensure new functionality includes corresponding tests.
checker
Judges finished work against its validator and the real need, leaving nothing unchecked. Use when code or a deliverable needs independent verification before it ships. Never edits the work, never implements the fix.
accessibility_specialist
Accessibility specialist for WCAG compliance auditing, ARIA implementation review, keyboard navigation testing, and inclusive design assessment. Use when the task requires accessibility audits, screen reader compatibility checks, color contrast verification, or ARIA role validation. For example: auditing a web app for…
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
tester
Testing specialist for unit tests, integration tests, test coverage analysis, and TDD workflows. Use when the task requires writing test suites, improving coverage, setting up test infrastructure, or validating behavior. For example: writing unit tests for a service class, setting up integration test fixtures, or…