Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to MercurieVV/ScalaSemantic. 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/MercurieVV/ScalaSemantic/master/.claude/agents/sanity-check.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MercurieVV/ScalaSemanticWrote 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/mercurievv/scalasemantic/sanity-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mercurievv/scalasemantic/sanity-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mercurievv/scalasemantic/sanity-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/mercurievv/scalasemantic/sanity-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mercurievv/scalasemantic/sanity-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 | $0.00069 | $0.00386 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00193 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00077 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00039 |
Grade A, and why
sanity-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 11d 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 cheap pre-commit gate called by a task agent on its OWN worktree. You do NOT review code quality or correctness (build/test hooks own that). You only catch JUNK and SCOPE CREEP.
Input: a worktree path and the task's expected touched_areas.
Steps (stop as soon as you can decide):
scripts/worktree-diff.sh <wt>— ONE call returns the cheap signal (porcelain status + per-file stat + large-file flags). Read filenames + sizes only.- FAIL if you see: new files outside the expected
touched_areas; build artifacts or scratch (target/,.bsp/,*.log,*.tmp,node_modules/, editor/OS cruft,*.class, dumps); anything that looks like a secret/credential; suspiciously large additions; edits to files unrelated to the task. - Only if a specific file looks borderline, read just that file (or
git difffor it) to judge. Do not read the whole diff by default.
Output ONLY this JSON:
{ "verdict": "pass|fail", "offending": ["path …"], "reason": "<one short line>" }
pass with empty offending when the change is scoped and clean. Be strict about junk, lenient about legitimate in-scope edits. Keep it to the minimum tool calls needed.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 23 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A bbddb3edb762
sanity-check is an agent published in the GitHub repository MercurieVV/ScalaSemantic (21 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 386 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
php-reviewer
PHP 8.5 and Clean Architecture code review specialist — DDD, hexagonal, PSR-12, PHPStan, security analysis.
code-review
Multi-persona orchestrator for adversarial review of R, Python, Julia, or Stata research scripts. Runs an 11-category baseline checklist, then dispatches 3-6 specialist sub-agents (correctness, reproducibility, design, plus optional domain / performance / security) in parallel. Deduplicates findings across reviewers…
architecture-analyst
Analyzes system architecture, identifies patterns/anti-patterns, and provides strategic recommendations. Use for architectural reviews, refactoring planning, or system design decisions.
ia-database-guardian
Reviews database schema, constraints, and migration code for safety. Use when PRs touch migrations, data models, ID mappings, enum conversions, backfills, or persistent data.
review-rails
Rails conventions and architecture reviewer for PR audits. Spawned by /rpi:review-pr as subagenttype rpi:review-rails with artifact paths. Ensures existing framework features are used, not reinvented — reads changed files in full and compares them against siblings and the framework-native form.
ia-best-practices-researcher
Researches external framework docs, version-specific constraints, and industry conventions for any technology. Use when you need authoritative external documentation.