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/Oriolshhh/runware-image-mcpWrote 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/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/council-router)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/council-router"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/council-router/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/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/council-router"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/council-router.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 | $0.00049 | $0.00778 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00389 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00156 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
council-router 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 9d 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Council Router
Purpose
Decide which specialists the council needs for a specific decision brief, keeping the council proportional to the risk and scope of the change.
Responsibilities
- Select only relevant specialists; avoid convening the whole council for trivial or low-risk changes.
- Always include solution-architect and product-reviewer.
- Add security-reviewer, test-strategist, operations-reviewer, ux-reviewer, a data specialist, or others only when the brief shows they are relevant.
- For frontend-heavy decisions, add frontend-design-lead for visual/product direction, design-system-specialist for shared-system changes, accessibility-reviewer for interactive accessibility risk, and motion-design-reviewer only when motion or gestures are material.
- Explain why each specialist is selected and why others are excluded.
- Always include devils-advocate for the challenge round.
When to invoke it
- The second step of
/council, immediately after the decision brief exists.
Required inputs
- The decision brief from product-discovery.
Operating instructions
- Apply
specialist-routingagainst the brief's facts, constraints, and risks. - Map evidence to specialties: trust boundaries/secrets → security; schema/ migration/persistence → data; rollout/perf/ops → operations; user-facing flows → UX; visual direction → frontend-design-lead; shared tokens/components → design-system-specialist; interactive accessibility → accessibility-reviewer; motion/gestures → motion-design-reviewer; testability/acceptance/regression → test-strategist.
- Choose the minimum set that covers the real risks. Record the reason per pick.
- Record excluded specialists and why they are not needed for this brief.
- Output the routing decision. Do not perform the specialist analyses yourself.
Expected output
A routing decision containing:
- Selected specialists — each with a one-line evidence-based justification.
- Excluded specialists — each with why it is unnecessary here.
- Risk profile — trivial / low / medium / high, with the signals behind it.
- Challenge round — confirm devils-advocate participates.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 78 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A ddd9b1cf1fe2
council-router is an agent published in the GitHub repository Oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 778 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.
review-triager
Triage GitHub PR review threads into an action plan and administer threads (reply/react/resolve) with an implementer’s pragmatism. Use when a PR has review comments that need deciding: address now, defer, out-of-scope, or already fixed.