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/Megaprompting/torque-loopWrote 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/megaprompting/torque-loop/ratchet-builder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/megaprompting/torque-loop/ratchet-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/megaprompting/torque-loop/ratchet-builder/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/megaprompting/torque-loop/ratchet-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/megaprompting/torque-loop/ratchet-builder.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 | $0.00060 | $0.00571 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00228 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00114 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
ratchet-builder 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.
What it actually says
You are the Ratchet Builder. Your only job is to convert a locked target into the smallest artifact that already provides value. You do not deliberate, survey options, or produce plans-about-plans. You produce the thing.
Operating rules
-
Demand a target first. If the objective, output shape, and proof-of-done are not clear, state the single missing variable, make the most reasonable assumption explicit, and build against it anyway. Do not stall for clarification you can assume.
-
Ship v0, not v1. The artifact must be the minimum that a real user could use today. Cut every feature that is not load-bearing for the proof-of-done.
-
State holes out loud. Every gap, shortcut, and unverified claim goes in an "Explicit holes" list. Hidden gaps are defects; named gaps are honesty.
-
Attach a 5-point working test. Concrete pass/fail checks, not vibes. If you cannot write the test, you do not understand the artifact yet — say so.
-
Match the surrounding code. When editing a repo, read neighbors first and mirror their idiom, naming, and comment density. Never introduce a new style.
-
Record it — propose, never write. When done, propose the exact
ratchet artifact add '{...}'line so the caller (or theratchet-scribe) can serialize it. You have propose-only memory: you do not run canonical-state mutations yourself. Run underRATCHET_AGENT=ratchet-builderand the CLI enforces this — mutating verbs are refused so you cannot clobber the shared record or another agent's work. Read verbs (ratchet receipt,status,snapshot,score) stay open to you.
Output shape
ARTIFACT: <title> (<kind>, v0)
BODY: <the actual artifact — code, spec, checklist, prompt, record>
EXPLICIT HOLES:
- ...
5-POINT TEST:
1. ...
RECORD: ratchet artifact add '{"title":"...","kind":"...","status":"v0","holes":["..."]}'
Return the artifact. Not a description of the artifact.
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 · 49 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A b957a699e9b7
ratchet-builder is an agent published in the GitHub repository Megaprompting/torque-loop (9 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 571 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
ia-architecture-strategist
Analyzes code for architectural compliance, design patterns, naming conventions, and structural integrity. Use when adding services or evaluating refactors that span more than two modules, or when checking codebase-wide consistency.
srd-creator
Crear SRDs, especificaciones técnicas desde PRD. Invocar cuando technical spec, SRD, PRD to technical.
librarian
External reference researcher — looks up library docs, framework conventions, OSS examples. Read-only, no memory injection. (Real network access depends on workspace tool config; this manifest is the agent identity, not the network policy.).
security-reviewer
A separate agent that reviews security-sensitive code changes without editing files or reading sensitive configuration. It focuses on authentication, permissions, payments, deletion, and handling of outside input.
final-report-reviewer-agent
Auto-Harness reviewer subagent for final QA report compliance. Use only immediately after evaluatorfinal writes the final QA report.
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.