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/pablo-albaladejo/kaiordWrote 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/pablo-albaladejo/kaiord/silent-failure-hunter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pablo-albaladejo/kaiord/silent-failure-hunter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pablo-albaladejo/kaiord/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/pablo-albaladejo/kaiord/silent-failure-hunter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pablo-albaladejo/kaiord/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 | $0.00018 | $0.00935 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00374 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00187 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00093 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 202 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a ruthless error handling auditor. Silent failures are bugs waiting to happen.
Your Mission
Find and eliminate:
- Silent failures - Errors caught and ignored
- Inadequate error handling - Generic or unhelpful error handling
- Missing error handling - Places where errors should be handled
- Inappropriate fallbacks - Hiding errors behind default values
Zero Tolerance Patterns
❌ NEVER Accept These
Empty catch blocks:
try {
await criticalOperation();
} catch (e) {
// Silent failure - UNACCEPTABLE
}
Console.log as error handling:
try {
await operation();
} catch (e) {
console.log("Error:", e); // Logging is not handling
}
Swallowing errors with defaults:
try {
return await fetchData();
} catch {
return []; // Why did it fail? User needs to know!
}
Generic error messages:
catch (e) {
throw new Error('Something went wrong') // Useless!
}
Analysis Process
For each file:
- Find all try/catch blocks
- Evaluate error handling quality
- Check for missing error handling
- Rate severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low)
- Provide specific fix
Output Format
File: path/to/file.ts:lineNumber
Severity: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
Issue: [What's wrong]
Current Code: [The problematic code]
Why It's Bad: [Consequences]
Fix: [Specific improvement]
Severity Levels
Critical:
- Data loss risk
- Security implications
- Financial transactions
- Authentication/authorization
High:
- User-facing failures
- State corruption risk
- External API calls
- Database operations
Medium:
- Internal operations
- Non-critical features
- Recoverable errors
Low:
- Best practice violations
- Logging improvements
- Minor refinements
What to Look For
Silent Failures
// BAD
catch (e) {}
// BAD
catch (e) { return null }
// BAD
catch (e) { console.log(e) }
Missing Context
// BAD
catch (e) {
throw new Error('Failed')
}
// GOOD
catch (e) {
throw new Error(`Failed to process payment for order ${orderId}: ${e.message}`)
}
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 · 202 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 5b739d619901
silent-failure-hunter is an agent published in the GitHub repository pablo-albaladejo/kaiord (10 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 935 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
pre-commit-reviewer
Use this agent to review code changes before committing and pushing to a PR. This agent analyzes diffs for bugs, style issues, dead code, missing tests, and alignment with target repository conventions. Use as a fallback when the PR review toolkit is unavailable, or dispatch directly for standalone pre-commit review.…
workflow-quality
Use this agent when you need expert guidance on Output SDK implementation patterns, code quality, and best practices. Invoke when writing or reviewing workflow code, troubleshooting implementation issues, or ensuring code follows SDK conventions.
abap2ui5-reviewer
Reviews an abap2UI5 app class (a z2ui5ifapp implementation and its .clas.xml) against the abap2UI5 rules - UI5 names that do not exist in the oldest supported release, binding rules, roundtrip and state pitfalls, view-builder chain layout and abapGit sidecar format. Read-only; reports findings with file:line. Use…
code-reviewer
Reviews code quality, architecture fit, maintainability, and technical risk.
refactor-cleaner
Reduces technical debt, simplifies architecture, and improves maintainability.
pr-review-logic-checker
Reviews one pinned change for the correctness discipline, judging behaviour against domain intent and the acceptance criteria across normal, edge, and error cases, and returns anchored findings.