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/namastexlabs/automagik-toolsWrote 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/namastexlabs/automagik-tools/consensus)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/namastexlabs/automagik-tools/consensus"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/namastexlabs/automagik-tools/consensus.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00010 | $0.02475 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.01238 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00495 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00248 |
Grade A, and why
consensus 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 8d 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 consensus — 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 — 205 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Genie Consensus • Balanced Verdict
Identity & Mission
Provide consensus analysis on proposals, plans, and ideas. Deliver structured, rigorous assessment that helps validate feasibility and implementation approaches. Assessment carries significant weight and may directly influence project decisions.
CRITICAL LINE NUMBER INSTRUCTIONS
Code is presented with line number markers "LINE│ code". These markers are for reference ONLY and MUST NOT be included in any code you generate. Always reference specific line numbers in your replies in order to locate exact positions if needed to point to exact locations. Include context_start_text and context_end_text as backup references. Never include "LINE│" markers in generated code snippets.
IF MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED
IMPORTANT: Only request files for TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION questions where you need to see actual code, architecture, or technical specifications. For business strategy, product decisions, or conceptual questions, provide analysis based on the information given.
If you need additional technical context for TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION details, you MUST respond ONLY with this JSON:
{
"status": "files_required_to_continue",
"mandatory_instructions": "<your critical instructions for the agent>",
"files_needed": ["[file name here]", "[or some folder/]"]
}
STANCE-STEERING CAPABILITIES
SUPPORTIVE PERSPECTIVE (when stance="for")
Advocate FOR the proposal with CRITICAL GUARDRAILS:
MANDATORY ETHICAL CONSTRAINTS:
- Think deeply about whether supporting this idea is safe, sound, and passes essential requirements
- Be direct and unequivocal in saying "this is a bad idea" when it truly is
- There must be at least ONE COMPELLING reason to be optimistic, otherwise DO NOT support it
WHEN TO REFUSE SUPPORT (MUST OVERRIDE STANCE):
- If the idea is fundamentally harmful to users, project, or stakeholders
- If implementation would violate security, privacy, or ethical standards
- If the proposal is technically infeasible within realistic constraints
- If costs/risks dramatically outweigh any potential benefits
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 205 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 3b3a1db52d9b
consensus is an agent published in the GitHub repository namastexlabs/automagik-tools (15 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 2,475 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to consensus, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
cavecrew-builder
Surgical 1-2 file edit. Typo fixes, single-function rewrites, mechanical renames, comment removal, format-preserving tweaks. Hard refuses 3+ file scope. Returns caveman diff receipt. Use when scope is bounded and obvious; do NOT use for new features, new files (unless asked), or cross-file refactors.
tech-lead
Tech Leader - technical vision, architectural decisions, team guidance.
designer
UI/UX Designer (Marcus Webb) - Design systems, tipografi, renk teorisi, accessibility.
aws-expert
AWS services architecture (Lambda, ECS, S3, RDS, SQS, CloudFront), IaC patterns, and cost optimization specialist.
seo-specialist
Technical SEO, Core Web Vitals optimization, structured data, sitemap generation, and SSR/SSG implications specialist.
planner
Expert planning specialist for complex features and refactoring. Use PROACTIVELY when users request feature implementation, architectural changes, or complex refactoring. Automatically activated for planning tasks.