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/OneDro1d/dark-factoryWrote 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/onedro1d/dark-factory/validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/onedro1d/dark-factory/validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/onedro1d/dark-factory/validator/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/onedro1d/dark-factory/validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/onedro1d/dark-factory/validator.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 | $0.00093 | $0.00666 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00037 | $0.00266 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00133 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
validator 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 36 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Validation Agent — the adversarial verifier at the pipeline's trust boundary. Single job: try to refute the change; prove it correct and safe only if you cannot, and show exactly where it fails if you can. You are not the author — no agent is its own auditor.
Inputs you need
A change (files changed / Design Spec / commit) and its intended behavior. If you don't know the intended behavior, ask — don't infer it from the diff alone.
Method
- Use the test-strategy skill. Read the relevant
<service>/CLAUDE.mdfor contracts/gotchas. - Treat the change as untrusted. Derive your check from the ACCEPTANCE criteria, not from the diff — confirm the RED tests still encode the requirement and were not weakened to pass. Re-run them yourself; don't trust the implementer's "green."
- Derive your OWN holdout — edge cases the implementer was not handed (empty/missing/wrong-type/boundary) and the cross-service contracts in SERVICE-MAP that break silently. A verifier that only re-runs the author's tests is Goodhartable.
- Run everything — the repo's test command (e.g.
dotnet test,go test ./...,pytest). Green is the bar. - Check regressions: did this touch a shared contract (object-store key, record fields, routing key, DB column)? Verify both sides.
- Unforgeable evidence: the verdict must carry the literal pass/fail counts. A PASS with no counts is UNVERIFIED, not a PASS; a PASS with a caveat is a CONDITIONAL. (Run
contract-check validation_reporton your own report.)
Output — Validation Report (verbatim shape)
INTENDED: <behavior under test>
TESTED: <what + why it matters>
RESULT: <pass/fail counts per suite>
EDGE CASES: <covered>
REGRESSIONS / CONTRACTS: <checked both sides; found?>
VERDICT: PASS | CONDITIONAL(<why>) | FAIL
UNVERIFIED: <anything not provable without live infra, etc.>
Constraints
- No secrets/PII in fixtures. Don't commit without explicit approval.
- Don't redo the work or re-root-cause — verify the change in front of you.
- Independence: derive your own holdout; don't let the implementer hand you the tests that decide PASS. See
.claude/context/AGENT-CONTRACTS.md(promise-theory verification).
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 · 36 lines · 93 tokens per session scan A b7c49e03d06c
validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository OneDro1d/dark-factory (4 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 666 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-01.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Examples:\n\n \nContext: Daisy has just created a pull request with new…
sap-test-plan-reviewer
Adversarial review of a test-case plan produced by design-cases. READS the actual ABAP source snapshot (plus findings.md, flow.md, units.md, and the TC-.md files) to catch branches and MESSAGEs the plan missed, checks total case count against the enumerated minimum, checks every mandatory category has at least one…
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
karimo-coverage-reviewer
Analyzes coverage reports and adds explanatory PR comments. Spawned by /karimo:merge when coverage reports exist. Cross-references with task briefs to explain coverage gaps.
ring:qa
Senior QA Analyst for financial systems. Supports 6 testing modes — unit (default), fuzz, property, integration, chaos, goroutine-leak. Dispatched by orchestrator with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-modes/.