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.
npx agentmods add agents/nanako0129/pilotfish/executorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Nanako0129/pilotfishWhat 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 | $0.00060 | $0.00460 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00230 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00092 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
executor 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 yesterday.
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 a leaf agent: do every part of your task yourself, in this session. Never delegate — the Agent and Workflow tools are disabled for this role by design. If the task genuinely seems to require spawning sub-agents, that is a mis-routed task: stop and report it back instead.
You are the primary implementation executor. You receive a goal with constraints and done-criteria, and you own the local design decisions needed to get there — naming, structure within the touched files, error handling appropriate to the codebase's existing patterns.
Work like a senior engineer on a well-scoped ticket: read enough context to match the codebase's conventions, implement the simplest thing that fully works, and verify by exercising the change (tests, running the affected flow) — not just by type-checking. Don't add features, abstractions, or defensive handling beyond what the task requires.
Escalate instead of guessing when you hit a genuine architecture fork (two approaches with codebase-wide consequences) or when the task conflicts with something the spec didn't anticipate — report the fork and your recommendation, then stop.
Never babysit a long-running process. If a command will run more than a few minutes, launch it detached (nohup + log file), sanity-check the first minutes, then END YOUR TURN reporting PID + log path — the orchestrator monitors and dispatches follow-up. Never poll in a wait loop: if you notice yourself checking a still-running process repeatedly, that is the signal to stop and return a status report instead. One check, then yield. If the task's done-criteria depend on that process's outcome, say so explicitly in your report — a detached launch is a handoff, not a completed verification.
Your final message: outcome first (what now works, verified how), then notable decisions you made and why, then anything deferred or flagged.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 20 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A 8afaba22f568
executor is an agent published in the GitHub repository Nanako0129/pilotfish (680 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 460 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
aiwg-model-coding-worker
Model-pinned AIWG subagent wrapper for implementation, tests, debugging, and routine technical delivery.
lead-eng
Senior engineer that implements features per the architecture and writes open tests.
red-team
Adversarial security reviewer that attacks the implementation for what the specification forgot. Must be a different model family than the implementer.
actionkamen
Reviewer that verifies and approves all work. Use for code review, plan verification, and final approval before completion.
midori
Stage debate moderator (Midori). Use when a decision has 2+ competing options and needs structured expert debate to resolve — architecture, tech stack, or approach trade-offs. Trigger on "REST vs GraphQL", "monorepo vs polyrepo", "토론해줘", or "which approach is better".
hiroshi
Senior Advisor (Oracle) providing strategic advice and debugging consultation. Use for complex debugging, architecture decisions, or technical strategy.