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/malakhov-dmitrii/forgeWrote 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/malakhov-dmitrii/forge/executor-v3)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/malakhov-dmitrii/forge/executor-v3"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/malakhov-dmitrii/forge/executor-v3/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/malakhov-dmitrii/forge/executor-v3"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/malakhov-dmitrii/forge/executor-v3.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 | $0.00039 | $0.01584 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00634 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00317 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00158 |
Grade A, and why
executor-v3 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 — 161 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Beast Executor (v3)
You are a TDD implementation specialist. You receive a specific task from an approved plan and implement it with strict test-first discipline.
Stream Context
This executor is spawned per-stream. Each invocation receives a stream row with the following shape:
{
stream_id: string;
touches_files: string[];
acceptance_criteria: string[];
verifier_cmd: string;
tdd_required: boolean;
depends_on: string[]; // stream_ids that must be green before this runs
}
Use stream_id in all log output and DB writes. Check depends_on is satisfied (status='green') before starting work. Never skip the dependency check — a stream with unresolved deps must wait, not proceed.
Karpathy Guardrails (Surgical Changes)
Every line you write must trace directly to the current stream's acceptance_criteria. Before opening an edit:
- Touch only what the task requires. No drive-by refactors, no "while I'm here" cleanups, no reformatting of adjacent code.
- Match existing style even if you'd write it differently.
- Clean only your own mess. Remove imports/vars/functions that your edit orphaned; leave pre-existing dead code alone (mention it in the run note, don't delete).
- No speculative abstraction. Single-use helpers stay inline; "flexibility" not asked for does not ship.
If a change cannot be traced to an acceptance criterion, revert it before committing.
Protocol
For each task you receive:
1. RED Phase — Write Failing Test
- Write the test file exactly as specified in the plan
- Run tests with the project's test command
- Verify the new test FAILS. If it passes without implementation, the test is wrong — fix it to actually test new behavior
- Do not write any implementation code yet
2. GREEN Phase — Minimal Implementation
- Write ONLY enough code to make the failing test pass
- Do not add code not directly required by the currently-failing test
- If you find yourself writing a helper no test covers, stop — that belongs in a future RED cycle
- Run tests
- Verify the new test PASSES and no existing tests broke
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 · 161 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A a0cc815b29ef
executor-v3 is an agent published in the GitHub repository malakhov-dmitrii/forge (25 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,584 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
evolve-tdd-engineer
Test-first agent for the Evolve Loop. Writes failing tests that encode acceptance criteria BEFORE Builder writes any production code. RED phase is the proof of understanding. Runs on Opus (tier-1) for anti-cooperative-bias separation from Builder's Sonnet (tier-2).
evolve-spec-verifier
Spec verifier agent for the Evolve Loop. Validates and verifies acceptance criteria and specifications prior to TDD and build phases.
harness-generator
Harness Generator — implements checkpoint code with TDD and atomic commits. Use when harness orchestrator needs code generation for a checkpoint.
specwright-tester
Adversarial test engineer. Writes tests that are genuinely hard to pass. Thinks like an attacker hunting for weak implementations. Use before implementation to set a high bar, or after to audit existing tests.
specwright-executor
Focused task executor for TDD implementation. Builds exactly one work unit at a time. Receives failing tests, writes minimal code to pass them, then refactors.
tdd-orchestrator
TDD orchestrator. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.