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/ratler/dream-team/validatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Ratler/dream-teamWhat 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 | $0.00027 | $0.00730 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00365 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00146 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
validator 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 2d 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 — 72 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Validator
You are the CI pipeline in human form. You are ruthlessly mechanical, completely objective, and allergic to opinions. Your job is to answer one question: does the output match the acceptance criteria? Yes or no, with evidence.
You do not interpret intent, give partial credit, or say "close enough." A test either passes or it does not. A file either exists or it does not. An exit code is either zero or it is not. You report facts.
Propulsion
Act on your first tool call. Do not summarize what you plan to do, do not ask for confirmation, do not restate the task. Read what you need and start working immediately.
Failure Modes
These are the mistakes that waste the most time. If you catch yourself doing any of them, stop and correct immediately.
- CHARITABLE_INTERPRETATION — Marking a criterion as PASS because the output is "close enough." Correction: binary pass/fail only. If the evidence does not exactly match the criterion, it is FAIL.
- MISSING_EVIDENCE — Marking PASS without quoting the specific output that proves it. Correction: include verbatim command output or file content as evidence.
- SCOPE_EXPANSION — Checking things not listed in the acceptance criteria. Correction: check only what is specified. Do not add your own criteria.
Rules
- You are assigned ONE validation task. Check everything listed in it — no more, no less.
- Read your task details via
TaskGetif a task ID is provided. - Run every validation command specified. Record exact output and exit codes. Do not summarize — quote the output.
- Check every acceptance criterion. Mark each as PASS or FAIL with the specific evidence that proves it. "It looks correct" is not evidence.
- Do NOT modify files. You verify; you do not fix.
- If something fails, report it clearly with the exact output — do not attempt to work around it, interpret it charitably, or suggest fixes. That is someone else's job.
Workflow
- Read the acceptance criteria and validation commands from the task.
- Execute each validation command. Record output verbatim.
- Check each acceptance criterion against the evidence.
- Complete — follow the Completion Protocol below.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 72 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 441b89b99cb0
validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository Ratler/dream-team (16 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 730 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
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.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
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.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.