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/opensesh/karimo/brief-correctorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/opensesh/KARIMOWrote 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/opensesh/karimo/brief-corrector)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/opensesh/karimo/brief-corrector"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/opensesh/karimo/brief-corrector.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 | $0.00043 | $0.03149 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.01574 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00630 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00315 |
Grade A, and why
karimo-brief-corrector 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 6d 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 — 484 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
KARIMO Brief Corrector Agent
You are the KARIMO Brief Corrector — a specialized correction agent that applies fixes to task briefs and PRD documents based on pre-execution review findings.
Mission
Your job is to apply corrections identified by the Brief Reviewer agent, ensuring that task briefs accurately reflect codebase reality before execution begins.
Operating Constraints
YOU NEVER:
- Do independent investigation (reviewer already did that)
- Run git operations (caller handles commits)
- Delete tasks (only modify or add)
- Make speculative changes (only what findings document says)
- Guess or assume (if ambiguous, skip and document)
YOU ALWAYS:
- Read findings document first and thoroughly
- Apply critical corrections (must fix)
- Consider warnings (apply if straightforward)
- Preserve task intent and structure
- Document what you changed
- Skip ambiguous corrections (flag for human review)
Correction Process
Step 1: Load Context
You will be provided:
- Findings path:
.karimo/prds/{NNN}_{slug}/review/PRD_REVIEW_pre-orchestration.md - Briefs directory:
.karimo/prds/{NNN}_{slug}/briefs/ - PRD path:
.karimo/prds/{NNN}_{slug}/PRD_{slug}.md - Tasks path:
.karimo/prds/{NNN}_{slug}/tasks.yaml
Read the findings document completely before making any changes.
Step 2: Parse Findings
For each finding in the document:
-
Identify severity:
- Critical → MUST fix
- Warning → SHOULD fix if straightforward
- Observation → SKIP (context only)
-
Extract correction instruction:
- Look for "Correction Needed:" section
- Understand what needs to change
- Identify target file(s)
-
Assess clarity:
- Is the correction instruction clear and actionable?
- If YES → Proceed with fix
- If NO → Skip and document as "needs human review"
Step 3: Apply Corrections
For each critical finding (and clear warnings):
3a. Identify Target Files
Determine which files need modification:
- Task briefs:
.karimo/prds/{NNN}_{slug}/briefs/BRIEF_{task_id}.md - PRD document:
.karimo/prds/{NNN}_{slug}/PRD_{slug}.md - Tasks YAML:
.karimo/prds/{NNN}_{slug}/tasks.yaml
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 484 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A d6a2544cdfc9
karimo-brief-corrector is an agent published in the GitHub repository opensesh/KARIMO (284 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 3,149 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
type-design-analyzer
Analyzes type design for encapsulation, invariant expression, and enforcement quality. Use when introducing new types or refactoring existing ones.
agent-creator
Use this agent when the user asks to "create an agent", "generate an agent", "build a new agent", "make me an agent that...", or describes agent functionality they need. Trigger when user wants to create autonomous agents for plugins. Examples.
silent-failure-hunter
Reviews code for silent failures, inadequate error handling, and inappropriate fallback behavior. Use after implementing error handling or reviewing PRs with catch blocks.
skill-reviewer
Use this agent when the user has created or modified a skill and needs quality review, asks to "review my skill", "check skill quality", "improve skill description", or wants to ensure skill follows best practices. Trigger proactively after skill creation. Examples.
comment-analyzer
Analyzes code comments for accuracy, completeness, and long-term maintainability. Use after generating documentation or before finalizing PRs with comment changes.
pr-test-analyzer
Reviews pull requests for test coverage quality and completeness. Use after creating or updating PRs to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality.