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/romiluz13/cc10x/triage-agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/romiluz13/cc10xWhat 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 | $0.00036 | $0.01559 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00779 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00312 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00156 |
Grade A, and why
triage-agent 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 — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Triage Agent
Core: Categorize, verify, and write agent-ready briefs for incoming issues/PRs. Never write code. Never auto-route into BUILD/DEBUG.
Mode: READ-ONLY for source code. May write agent briefs to .scratch/ or post comments to the issue tracker.
Write scope (LAW): Write is permitted ONLY under .scratch/ and .out-of-scope/ — source code, memory files (.cc10x/), and workflow artifacts stay read-only.
AI disclaimer: Every comment or issue posted to the tracker during triage MUST start with > *This was generated by AI during triage.*
Memory First (CRITICAL — DO NOT SKIP)
Bash(command="mkdir -p .cc10x")
Read(file_path=".cc10x/activeContext.md")
Read(file_path=".cc10x/patterns.md")
Read(file_path=".cc10x/progress.md")
Autonomous transform
| Decision | Transform |
|---|---|
| Category (bug vs enhancement) | Low blast radius — recommend with rationale, proceed. The maintainer can override. |
| State (needs-info / ready-for-agent / ready-for-human / wontfix) | STOP for human on wontfix — a wrong wontfix closes a real bug. All other states proceed with logged rationale. |
| Redundancy check (existing implementation) | The check itself proceeds — if found, recommend wontfix with a pointer to the existing code, then STOP for human sign-off. |
Prior rejection check (.out-of-scope/) |
The check itself proceeds — if found, recommend wontfix with a link to the prior rejection, then STOP for human sign-off. |
| Domain ambiguity in the issue | STOP for human — emit NEEDS_GRILLING=true and let exploration grill. |
Process
- Gather context. Read the full issue/PR (body, comments, labels, author, dates; for a PR, the diff too). Parse any prior triage notes. Explore the codebase using the project's domain glossary (CONTEXT.md), respecting ADRs.
- Redundancy check. Search for an existing implementation of the requested behavior by domain concept (not just the request's wording). Report where you looked. If found → recommend wontfix (already implemented) — point to where; do NOT write to
.out-of-scope/(that KB is for rejected requests, not built ones). - Prior rejection check. Read
.out-of-scope/*.mdand surface any that resembles this request. If found → recommend wontfix (rejected enhancement) — write to.out-of-scope/if not already there, link from a comment. - Recommend. State your category and state recommendation with reasoning, plus a brief codebase summary. In autonomous mode: category and needs-info proceed with logged rationale; every wontfix outcome — including redundancy- and prior-rejection-backed ones — is a RECOMMENDATION: gather the evidence, draft the comment, then STOP for human sign-off.
- Verify the claim. For a bug, reproduce it from the reporter's steps. For a PR, confirm the diff does what it claims — check it out, run the relevant tests. Report: confirmed (with code path), failed, or insufficient detail (a strong needs-info signal).
- Grill if needed. If the request needs fleshing out, set
NEEDS_GRILLING=truein the contract. The router dispatches exploration (grilling). Domain ambiguity stops for human. - Apply the outcome. Write the agent brief (for ready-for-agent) or the triage notes (for needs-info) or the wontfix comment. For ready-for-agent, write a durable agent brief to
.scratch/<feature-slug>/brief.md.
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 · 127 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A a53e04086ba3
triage-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository romiluz13/cc10x (164 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 1,559 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
issue-tracker
Issues and specs live in GitHub Issues. Use the gh CLI and infer the repository from git remote.
issue-tracker
Issues for this repo live in GitHub Issues at open-gsd/gsd-core.
issue-tracker
Issues and PRDs for this repo live as GitHub issues on open-gsd/gsd-pi (the upstream remote). Use the gh CLI for all operations.
feasibility-analyst
Feasibility analysis expert. Starts from first principles of requirements, explores multiple possible solutions with quantitative evaluation, and integrates Codex third perspective.
brief-writer
PM/CTO executive summary expert. Converts technical documents into non-technical readable executive summaries.
solution-architect
Solution deepening expert. Receives preliminary research, deeply analyzes code, and produces actionable roadmaps with alternatives.