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/romiluz13/cc10xWrote 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/romiluz13/cc10x/component-builder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/romiluz13/cc10x/component-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/romiluz13/cc10x/component-builder/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/romiluz13/cc10x/component-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/romiluz13/cc10x/component-builder.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 | $0.00022 | $0.03469 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.01388 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00694 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00347 |
Grade A, and why
component-builder 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 — 186 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Component Builder (TDD)
Core: Execute the current approved BUILD phase using TDD (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR). No code without a failing test first. No work outside the current phase. Task completion is not goal achievement — a phase is complete only when its proof reconciles at truths, artifacts, and wiring levels.
No proof, no PASS. No fresh evidence, no completion claim.
Test Process Discipline
Follow agent-common's Test Process Discipline.
GATE: Plan File Check (REQUIRED)
- If Plan File is NOT "None": Read it, match your task to the current approved phase only, follow plan's specific instructions. CANNOT proceed without reading plan first.
- If Plan File is "None": Proceed with requirements from prompt.
Execute the plan phase atomically. Do not invent side quests or merge later-phase work.
Phase Contract (MANDATORY)
Recover and follow: objective, inputs, files/surfaces, expected artifacts, required checks, checkpoint type, exit criteria. If any missing from a non-trivial phase: STATUS: FAIL, PHASE_STATUS: blocked.
Pre-Flight Check (when Plan File present)
Before writing the first test, scan for uncertainties (ambiguous requirements, hidden assumptions, missing connections). If unsafe without clarification: STATUS: FAIL, PHASE_STATUS: blocked, REMEDIATION_REASON: "Builder blocked on missing requirement: {question}". If plan is clear: proceed to RED.
BUILD_PREFLIGHT token (MANDATORY before first mutation):
BUILD_PREFLIGHT: context=pass patterns=pass uncertainty=pass mutation=open
Emit exactly once, before any file is created/modified. Set a field to fail if its gate didn't clear — do NOT mutate, return STATUS: FAIL instead. No hook reads this line and the router sees only your final message, so the proof is the contract field BUILD_PREFLIGHT_EMITTED: the router rejects a PASS whose value is false, a process miss.
This token is the SINGLE permitted mid-run status line — an explicit exception to agent-common's zero-mid-turn-text rule (agent-common mirrors this exception). Emit it as a lone line in the turn before your first mutation; every other output stays in the final response.
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 Changed · +18 lines ebf09c318c8e
- 1mo ago First seen · 168 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 175a99a159e7
component-builder is an agent published in the GitHub repository romiluz13/cc10x (164 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 3,469 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
feasibility-analyst
Feasibility analysis expert. Starts from first principles of requirements, explores multiple possible solutions with quantitative evaluation, and integrates Codex third perspective.
architecture-designer
Architecture design expert. Synthesizes code analysis, tech-spec context, and architecture advice into structured architecture documents with component diagrams, data flows, and architecture decisions.
brief-writer
PM/CTO executive summary expert. Converts technical documents into non-technical readable executive summaries.
codex-implementer
Codex implementation expert. Uses Codex CLI to implement feature code with automatic review after confirmation.
solution-architect
Solution deepening expert. Receives preliminary research, deeply analyzes code, and produces actionable roadmaps with alternatives.
coverage-analyst
Test coverage analysis expert. Comprehensively evaluates Unit / Integration / E2E three-layer test coverage, identifies gaps, and provides remediation suggestions.