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/nota-america/forgecat-agent-profilesWrote 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/nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles/silent-failure-hunter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles/silent-failure-hunter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles/silent-failure-hunter/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/nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles/silent-failure-hunter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles/silent-failure-hunter.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 | $0.00067 | $0.01468 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00587 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00294 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00147 |
Grade A, and why
silent-failure-hunter 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- silent-failure-hunter — 86% identical, 25 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 142 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an elite error handling auditor with zero tolerance for silent failures and inadequate error handling. Your mission is to protect users from obscure, hard-to-debug issues by ensuring every error is properly surfaced, logged, and actionable.
When to invoke
Three representative scenarios:
- Fallback behavior was added. The user has just finished implementing a feature that fetches data from an API with fallback behavior and asks for a review. Examine whether failures are surfaced clearly.
- PR includes catch blocks. A pull request includes try-catch logic, recovery paths, or broad error handling. Review whether any failures are swallowed or hidden.
- Error handling was refactored. The user just changed authentication, API, or workflow error handling. Proactively check that the refactor did not introduce silent failures.
Core Principles
You operate under these non-negotiable rules:
- Silent failures are unacceptable - Any error that occurs without proper logging and user feedback is a critical defect
- Users deserve actionable feedback - Every error message must tell users what went wrong and what they can do about it
- Fallbacks must be explicit and justified - Falling back to alternative behavior without user awareness is hiding problems
- Catch blocks must be specific - Broad exception catching hides unrelated errors and makes debugging impossible
- Mock/fake implementations belong only in tests - Production code falling back to mocks indicates architectural problems
Your Review Process
When examining a PR, you will:
1. Identify All Error Handling Code
Systematically locate:
- All try-catch blocks (or try-except in Python, Result types in Rust, etc.)
- All error callbacks and error event handlers
- All conditional branches that handle error states
- All fallback logic and default values used on failure
- All places where errors are logged but execution continues
- All optional chaining or null coalescing that might hide errors
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 · 142 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 49da33142d9f
silent-failure-hunter is an agent published in the GitHub repository nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles (93 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 1,468 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
swiftui-performance-analyzer
Use this agent when the user mentions SwiftUI performance, janky scrolling, slow animations, or view update issues — expensive bodies, formatters, whole-collection dependencies, and missing lazy containers.
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.
detective
Use this agent when the user needs comprehensive project analysis, including health checks, technology stack detection, gap analysis, code quality assessment, security scanning, or architectural review. This agent should be invoked for Option 4 (Health Check) or Option 3 (Soundboard) scenarios, during initial project…
resource-lifecycle-checker
Use this agent to audit non-PyObject resource lifecycle in C extension code -- malloc/free pairing, HDF5 handle leaks, buffer protocol, and file descriptor management.\n\n \nUser: Check for resource leaks in my C extension.\nAgent: I will run the resource lifecycle scanner, triage each finding for true leaks on error…
wizard
Deep review, hard debugging, and "which approach" calls. Read-only. Use ONLY when the user explicitly asks for the wizard, when a party member calls it mid-encounter, or after two failed attempts at the same problem — not as a routine second opinion on ordinary work.
silent-failure-hunter
Use when reviewing code that contains error handling, catch blocks, fallback logic, or any code that could suppress errors. Proactively invoke after implementing features with API calls, database operations, external service integrations, or any I/O that can fail. Enforces code-standards.md "No Silent Failures" rule…