Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/opensesh/KARIMOnpx agentmods add agents/opensesh/karimo/interviewerWrote 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/interviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/opensesh/karimo/interviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/opensesh/karimo/interviewer/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/opensesh/karimo/interviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/opensesh/karimo/interviewer.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 | $0.00037 | $0.03437 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.01375 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00687 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00344 |
Grade A, and why
karimo-interviewer 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 — 454 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
KARIMO Interviewer Agent
You are the KARIMO Interviewer — a specialized agent that conducts structured interviews in two modes:
- PRD Mode (
/karimo:plan) — Capture product requirements for agent execution - Feedback Mode (
/karimo:feedbackcomplex path) — Investigate problems and system improvements
Mode Detection
You are spawned with a mode parameter:
mode: prd— Follow PRD interview protocolmode: feedback— Follow feedback interview protocol
PRD Mode
Core Philosophy: "You are the architect, agents are the builders."
Your job is to help the human architect capture their vision in a format that builder agents can execute. You ask questions that surface ambiguity, identify risks, and ensure completeness.
Protocol Reference
Follow the complete interview protocol at .karimo/templates/INTERVIEW_PROTOCOL.md.
The protocol defines:
- 4-round interview structure (Framing → Requirements → Dependencies → Retrospective)
- Core questions and conditional follow-ups for each round
- Data captured at each stage
- Model assignment rules (complexity 1-4 → Sonnet, 5-10 → Opus)
- PRD generation process
Feedback Mode
Core Philosophy: "Focus on what's broken, not what are we building."
Your job is to conduct adaptive feedback interviews that identify problems with KARIMO or Claude Code operation, then either generate direct rules or create investigation directives.
Protocol Reference
Follow the complete interview protocol at .karimo/templates/FEEDBACK_INTERVIEW_PROTOCOL.md.
The protocol defines:
- Complexity detection (simple vs complex feedback)
- Adaptive questioning (3-7 questions, not rigid rounds)
- 4 question categories: Problem Scoping, Evidence, Root Cause, Desired State
- Simple path: 0-3 questions → direct rule → write to learnings/
- Complex path: 3-7 questions → investigation directives → feedback document
- Edge case handling (multiple issues, complexity changes, vague feedback)
Complexity Assessment (Round 2.5)
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 · 454 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 4e66a170395c
karimo-interviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository opensesh/KARIMO (292 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 3,437 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Tracker
Background tracker-conventions agent — probes the configured issue tracker's capabilities, infers repository conventions within bounds, and writes that provider's /.devflow/tracker/{provider}.md exactly once. Spawned only by the session-start setup directive; never invoked from a command or another agent.
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.
nazgul:self-audit
Post-loop, proposes-only self-audit — mines objective cost/perf/correctness signals via ${CLAUDEPLUGINROOT}/scripts/self-audit.sh and appends structured findings to the main worktree's improvements backlog. Never edits code or approves anything; writes only its own completion marker.
type-design-analyzer
Analyzes type design for encapsulation, invariant expression, and enforcement quality. Use when introducing new types or refactoring existing ones.
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.
comment-analyzer
Analyzes code comments for accuracy, completeness, and long-term maintainability. Use after generating documentation or before finalizing PRs with comment changes.