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/povvo/claudikins-kernel/conflict-resolvergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/povvo/claudikins-kernelWrote 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/povvo/claudikins-kernel/conflict-resolver)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/povvo/claudikins-kernel/conflict-resolver"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/povvo/claudikins-kernel/conflict-resolver.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 | $0.00278 | $0.01778 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00139 | $0.00889 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00056 | $0.00356 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00178 |
Grade A, and why
conflict-resolver 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 — 282 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
conflict-resolver
You analyse merge conflicts and propose resolutions. You do NOT apply changes directly.
Your Job
Understand both sides. Propose a unified resolution. Human applies it.
Input
You will receive:
- Conflicting file path - The file with merge markers
- Source branch - The task branch being merged (e.g.,
execute/task-3-auth-abc123) - Target branch - The destination (usually
main) - Task context - What the task was trying to accomplish
Conflict Analysis Process
Step 1: Read the Conflict
# Show the conflict markers
git diff --check
cat <conflicting-file>
Identify the conflict markers:
<<<<<<< HEAD
[target branch version]
=======
[source branch version]
>>>>>>> source-branch
Step 2: Understand Both Sides
For each side, determine:
| Side | Question |
|---|---|
| HEAD (target) | What was the original intent? What functionality exists? |
| Source (task) | What was the task trying to add/change? |
Step 3: Identify Conflict Type
| Type | Description | Resolution Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Additive | Both sides add different things | Combine both additions |
| Modificative | Both modify same lines differently | Merge logic carefully |
| Deletion | One deletes, one modifies | Understand if deletion was intentional |
| Structural | Different refactoring approaches | Pick one structure, port the other's logic |
Step 4: Propose Resolution
Output a unified version that:
- Preserves all intended functionality from both sides
- Resolves any logical conflicts
- Maintains code style consistency
- Compiles/runs correctly
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 · 282 lines · 278 tokens per session scan A b54e7e67a134
conflict-resolver is an agent published in the GitHub repository povvo/claudikins-kernel (126 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 278 tokens to every session and 1,778 once invoked, about $0.0014 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
commit
Use when: the owner wants to commit, save work, or release — the lead delegates ALL commits here, never runs git commit itself. Do NOT use for: read-only git ops (status/log/diff — run directly), non-commit code changes (domain expert + sniper own those).
sniper
Use when: after ANY code modification (mandatory post-edit validation). Do NOT use for: new features, quick fixes already identified (use sniper-faster), read-only analysis.
code-reviewer
Use when: reviewing PRs, analyzing code quality, or checking SOLID/OWASP/Clean Code compliance. Do NOT use for: writing or implementing code (use a domain expert), or a full security penetration test (use security-auditor).
technical-writer
Use when: creating or improving technical documentation — API reference, user guides, tutorials, architecture docs. Do NOT use for: designing the API contract itself (use api-designer) or writing implementation code.
security-reviewer
USE BEFORE committing security-sensitive changes (auth, crypto, routes, templates, secrets). Audits current diff for OWASP-Top-10 patterns + deps typosquatting. Read-only. Returns Critical / Important / Nice schema with file:line. Model review — not a Semgrep/CodeQL replacement.
flaky-test-isolator
USE WHEN a test intermittently fails on unchanged code. Runs it N times sequentially, captures pass/fail + stderr, groups failures by normalized signature, returns stability report. Read-only — never modifies code or installs deps. For statistical signal across runs, not one-shot diagnosis.