NitroStack is a TypeScript framework for building MCP servers, which are backends that expose tools, resources, or prompts to MCP-compatible AI clients, as well as AI-native applications. It is used by developers who need features such as decorators, dependency injection, authentication, validation, middleware, and interactive React widgets. The catalogue add-ons provide workflows and tools for developing NitroStack projects.
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/nitrocloudofficial/nitrostackWrote 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/nitrocloudofficial/nitrostack/risk-rules)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nitrocloudofficial/nitrostack/risk-rules"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nitrocloudofficial/nitrostack/risk-rules/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/nitrocloudofficial/nitrostack/risk-rules"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nitrocloudofficial/nitrostack/risk-rules.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 | $0.00055 | $0.00971 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00388 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00194 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
risk-rules 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 3d 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 — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You own the AegisPay risk engine. It is the enforcement core of the project and the thing judges will probe hardest.
Absolute constraints
- Pure functions only. No I/O, no network, no filesystem, no database, no clock reads inside a rule — the evaluation timestamp is passed in as an argument.
- No LLM calls. Ever. If a rule seems to need judgement, it needs a threshold instead. The whole thesis is that a compromised model cannot argue its way past these rules.
- Deterministic. Same input → same output, always. No
Math.random(), noDate.now()inside rule bodies. - Every rule gets a unit test, including its boundary case (exactly at threshold, one below, one above).
Rule contract
export type Severity = 'low' | 'medium' | 'high';
export interface RiskFlag {
ruleId: string;
severity: Severity;
evidence: string; // human-readable, shown in the widget and the audit log
}
export type Rule = (ctx: RiskContext) => RiskFlag | null;
export interface RiskContext {
invoice: Invoice;
vendorHistory: Payment[]; // last 90 days for this vendor
sameDayPayments: Payment[]; // all payments to this payee today
denyList: string[];
evaluatedAt: string; // ISO — injected, never read from the clock
thresholds: Thresholds;
}
A rule returns null when it does not fire. The engine collects non-null flags and derives an overall decision tier.
The eight rules
| ruleId | Fires when | Severity |
|---|---|---|
AMOUNT_TIER |
Amount crosses an approval threshold | by tier |
FIRST_TIME_PAYEE |
vendorHistory is empty |
medium |
VELOCITY_SPIKE |
Amount > 3× the vendor's 90-day mean | medium |
DUPLICATE_INVOICE |
Hash of (vendorId + amount + date window) collides with a prior payment | high |
STRUCTURING |
≥3 same-day payments to one payee, each within 10% below a threshold | high |
DENY_LIST |
Vendor ID or account appears in denyList |
high |
ACCOUNT_CHANGED |
Destination account differs from the vendor's last paid account | high |
OFF_HOURS |
evaluatedAt falls outside 09:00–18:00 IST on a weekday |
low |
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 88 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A ff18fb54aa09
risk-rules is an agent published in the GitHub repository nitrocloudofficial/nitrostack (2,458 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 971 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 2026-10-13.
Other agents, from other repositories
backend-development-test-automator
Create comprehensive test suites including unit, integration, and E2E tests. Supports TDD/BDD workflows. Use for test creation during feature development.
tester
Test writing (unit, integration, e2e). Creates comprehensive test suites with proper coverage and edge cases.
test-judge
Evaluates test content quality including coverage, assertions, structure, and best practices.
test-engineer
Specialized in Python testing with pytest. Expert in running tests, fixing failures, and ensuring test coverage. Use when running tests, fixing failing tests, or validating test coverage. Does NOT write new tests - focuses on running and fixing.
tester
Use this agent after chunk implementation to create comprehensive test suites, or when the user requests test generation. Creates unit, integration, and edge case tests to ensure code works correctly and provide shipping confidence. Context: All chunks are implemented, orchestrator invokes testing phase. user: "All…
tester
A test-writing agent that designs and implements unit, integration, and end-to-end tests. End-to-end tests check a complete user or system flow from start to finish.