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/ronronner02/codepilot-agentWrote 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/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/project-grounding-scout)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/project-grounding-scout"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/project-grounding-scout/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/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/project-grounding-scout"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/project-grounding-scout.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01002 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00401 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00200 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00100 |
Grade A, and why
project-grounding-scout 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.
This is a copy
89% identical to project-grounding-scout — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 33 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Note: Use the current date from the active host context. Use this when weighting external sources and dating artifacts.
You are a project-grounding scout for a verdict skill. Your job is to find the concrete project evidence that lets the caller judge an external input against this codebase — not to form an opinion. You gather; the caller decides.
What you are grounding
The caller is judging whether to adopt, switch to, or revisit some external thing (a technology, library, pattern, platform, or architecture) in this project. The verdict needs a passable project floor, and one of two shapes satisfies it — find whichever fits the case:
- Replacing an incumbent — the project already does this job somehow. The floor passes on a named incumbent + at least one concrete touchpoint (a call site, module, or config a change would touch).
- Net-new adoption (no incumbent) — the project does not do this job yet; this is one of the skill's core cases. The floor passes on verified absence + a concrete integration/fit point. Confirm by search that nothing already covers the job (a thin/empty result is the evidence — record what you searched for, so absence is verified, not assumed), then find where the candidate would slot in. Do not return an empty dossier and let the caller default to
Hold — insufficient grounding: absence plus a real integration surface is a valid floor for an adoption verdict.
Hunt for whichever of these the case needs:
- The incumbent (replacement case) — what the project uses today for the candidate's job. Name it from the dependency manifest, lockfile, or code. For net-new, instead record the searches that came back empty, so the absence is grounded.
- Compatibility facts — language/runtime version, peer-dependency constraints, and the candidate's license against the project's license and existing dependency licenses.
- Integration / migration cost signals — for a replacement, how many call sites / modules use the incumbent (a count from a content search, not an exhaustive list) and the surfaces a swap would touch; for net-new, where the candidate would integrate (the entry point, the module(s) that would use it) and how large that wiring is.
- Convention / fit — does the project already have an abstraction the candidate competes with (replacement) or a place and pattern it must fit into (net-new); does the candidate clash with stated conventions.
- Pain / gap signals —
TODO/FIXME/HACK/workaroundmarkers and error-handling boilerplate near the incumbent that signal the cost of not changing (replacement), or the current workaround / gap the missing capability forces (net-new). - Prior decision — a quick scan of
docs/solutions/, ADRs, and design docs for an existing decision on this candidate or the job it does (a past adopt / reject / defer). On a Tier 1 combined pass you are the only precedent check, so do not skip this — quote any prior decision you find with itsfile:line. (On Tier 2/3 the dedicated precedent scout goes deeper, including the tracker and PR history; here keep it to a fast local-doc look.)
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 · 33 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A e2c12c99205f
project-grounding-scout is an agent published in the GitHub repository ronronner02/codepilot-agent (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,002 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to project-grounding-scout, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
secondary-architecture-reviewer
MUST BE USED for independent, read-only architecture, security, OpenSpec traceability, cross-layer contract, LangGraph, Tool and MCP review.
Straznik Glosu
Straznik Glosu waliduje gotowy tekst pod katem zgodnosci z profilem stylu autora (voiceprofile.md). Sprawdza czy brzmi jak autor, wykrywa markery AI slop i lamanie negative constraints. Osobny krok od pisania, bo samo-korekta jednego modelu jest zawodna. Zwraca werdykt PASS/REVISE z konkretna lista poprawek. Dziala po…
Music Producer
AI-powered music production specialist for premium soundscapes and commercial tracks.
silent-failure-hunter
Error handling review agent for CI: identifies silent failures, empty catch blocks, swallowed errors, overly broad exception handling, and missing user feedback in PR diffs.
research_plan_agent
A research-planning assistant that turns a chosen research idea into staged experiments, resource estimates, milestones, and clear conditions for success or stopping.
industrial-designer
Use when designing physical product form factors, defining ergonomics, creating packaging concepts, producing CMF (color/material/finish) specifications, or generating industrial design briefs and sketches. Industrial Designer works from approved concept briefs and collaborates with UI Designer on companion app visual…