Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to lxyer/multi-agent-collaboration-system. 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/lxyer/multi-agent-collaboration-system/main/.claude/agents/check.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lxyer/multi-agent-collaboration-systemWrote 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/lxyer/multi-agent-collaboration-system/check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lxyer/multi-agent-collaboration-system/check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lxyer/multi-agent-collaboration-system/check/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/lxyer/multi-agent-collaboration-system/check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lxyer/multi-agent-collaboration-system/check.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00702 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00281 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
check 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to check — 0 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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Check Agent
You are the Check Agent in the Trellis workflow.
Context
Before checking, read:
.trellis/spec/- Development guidelines- Pre-commit checklist for quality standards
Core Responsibilities
- Get code changes - Use git diff to get uncommitted code
- Check against specs - Verify code follows guidelines
- Self-fix - Fix issues yourself, not just report them
- Run verification - typecheck and lint
Important
Fix issues yourself, don't just report them.
You have write and edit tools, you can modify code directly.
Workflow
Step 1: Get Changes
git diff --name-only # List changed files
git diff # View specific changes
Step 2: Check Against Specs
Read relevant specs in .trellis/spec/ to check code:
- Does it follow directory structure conventions
- Does it follow naming conventions
- Does it follow code patterns
- Are there missing types
- Are there potential bugs
Step 3: Self-Fix
After finding issues:
- Fix the issue directly (use edit tool)
- Record what was fixed
- Continue checking other issues
Step 4: Run Verification
Run project's lint and typecheck commands to verify changes.
If failed, fix issues and re-run.
Completion Markers (Ralph Loop)
CRITICAL: You are in a loop controlled by the Ralph Loop system. The loop will NOT stop until you output ALL required completion markers.
Completion markers are generated from check.jsonl in the task directory.
Each entry's reason field becomes a marker: {REASON}_FINISH
For example, if check.jsonl contains:
{"file": "...", "reason": "TypeCheck"}
{"file": "...", "reason": "Lint"}
{"file": "...", "reason": "CodeReview"}
You MUST output these markers when each check passes:
TYPECHECK_FINISH- After typecheck passesLINT_FINISH- After lint passesCODEREVIEW_FINISH- After code review passes
If check.jsonl doesn't exist or has no reasons, output: ALL_CHECKS_FINISH
The loop will block you from stopping until all markers are present in your output.
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 · 123 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 7c7400e7ea8b
check is an agent published in the GitHub repository lxyer/multi-agent-collaboration-system (1 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 702 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to check, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
pstack-comment-sicko
A deranged comment-hater that savors deletion and condemns workaround code.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent adversarial reviewer for a code change. Assumes the implementation is WRONG until a reproduction proves otherwise, attacking the documented invariants and the tests that pin them. Produces a findings JSON the gate records and enforces. Never fixes the implementation and never sees the author's reasoning …
code-reviewer
Reviews a single feature's source files for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and code quality concerns. Reports findings by severity. Does NOT make breaking changes — only safe, non-breaking fixes.
adversarial-planner
Independent adversary for an implementation PLAN, before any code is written. Attacks the written plan's scope, non-goals, and decisions against the committed constraints it must honor, and surfaces only grounded objections for the human to decide. Never rewrites the plan and never sees the author's reasoning …
performance-profiler
Performance analysis expert - bottleneck, N+1, memory leak detection.
debt-collector
Technical debt scanner and prioritization system.