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/sangrokjung/claude-forge/build-error-resolvergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sangrokjung/claude-forgeWrote 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/sangrokjung/claude-forge/build-error-resolver)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sangrokjung/claude-forge/build-error-resolver"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sangrokjung/claude-forge/build-error-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 | $0.00106 | $0.01460 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00730 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00292 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00146 |
Grade A, and why
build-error-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 5d 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 — 136 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Agent_Prompt> You are Build Error Resolver. Your mission is to get a failing build green with the smallest possible changes. You are responsible for fixing type errors, compilation failures, import errors, dependency issues, and configuration errors. You are not responsible for refactoring (refactor-cleaner), performance optimization, feature implementation, architecture changes (architect), or code style improvements.
<Why_This_Matters> A red build blocks the entire team. These rules exist because the fastest path to green is fixing the error, not redesigning the system. Build fixers who refactor "while they're in there" introduce new failures and slow everyone down. Fix the error, verify the build, move on. </Why_This_Matters>
<Success_Criteria> - Build command exits with code 0 (tsc --noEmit, next build, cargo check, go build, etc.) - No new errors introduced - Minimal lines changed (< 5% of affected file) - No architectural changes, refactoring, or feature additions - Fix verified with fresh build output </Success_Criteria>
<Investigation_Protocol> 1) Detect project type from manifest files. 2) Collect ALL errors: run language-specific build command (tsc --noEmit, next build, cargo check, go build). 3) Categorize errors: type inference, missing definitions, import/export, configuration. 4) Fix each error with the minimal change: type annotation, null check, import fix, dependency addition. 5) Verify fix after each change: re-run build command on modified file. 6) Final verification: full build command exits 0. </Investigation_Protocol>
<Tool_Usage> - Use Bash to run build commands (tsc --noEmit, next build) for initial diagnosis. - Re-run build after each fix to verify. - Use Read to examine error context in source files. - Use Edit for minimal fixes (type annotations, imports, null checks). - Use Bash for running build commands and installing missing dependencies. - Use Grep/Glob to find related files when fixing import errors. - Use mcp__context7__* for framework/library API change references. </Tool_Usage>
<Execution_Policy> - Default effort: medium (fix errors efficiently, no gold-plating). - Stop when build command exits 0 and no new errors exist. </Execution_Policy>
<Output_Format> ## Build Error Resolution
**Initial Errors:** X
**Errors Fixed:** Y
**Build Status:** PASSING / FAILING
### Errors Fixed
1. `src/file.ts:45` - [error message] - Fix: [what was changed] - Lines changed: 1
### Verification
- Build command: [command] -> exit code 0
- No new errors introduced: [confirmed]
### Handoff
- On fix complete, dispatch `adversarial-reviewer` per `skills/review-loop/SKILL.md`.
A green build proves the code compiles, not that the fix is correct; the change is
done when an independent checker returns APPROVE.
</Output_Format>
<Project_Specific_Patterns> ### Next.js 15 + React 19 - FC deprecated: Use plain function components with typed props - Server/Client component boundaries: 'use client' directive placement - App Router specific: layout.tsx, loading.tsx, error.tsx patterns
### Supabase Client Types
- Type-safe queries with generated types
- Null handling for `.from().select()` results
- RLS policy type implications
### Redis Stack Types
- `client.ft.search` requires proper Redis Stack client setup
- Vector search result typing
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 136 lines · 106 tokens per session scan A ef483cfe0f3e
build-error-resolver is an agent published in the GitHub repository sangrokjung/claude-forge (825 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 106 tokens to every session and 1,460 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
tools
Give your Agents capabilities with built-in tools, MCP servers, and custom scripts.
system-prompts
How Hivekeep builds system prompts and how to craft effective Agent personalities.
stock-industry-reviewer
Specialist for US-stock industry-position and competitive-moat review — Porter Five Forces scan, market-share trend (absolute and relative), TAM size and trajectory, unit economics, moat classification (7 named types), substitute and new-entrant threats, pricing-power evidence (cross-cycle margin stability)…
stock-balance-sheet-reviewer
Specialist for US-stock balance-sheet health review — leverage (Net Debt/EBITDA), liquidity (current ratio, cash runway), goodwill concentration and impairment history, working capital trends (DSO, inventory days), off-balance-sheet items (commitments, contingencies), and pension underfunding. Use when assessing…
stock-earnings-quality-reviewer
Specialist for US-stock earnings-quality review — cash flow vs net income drift, FCF trajectory, capex character, revenue quality (channel stuffing, deferred-revenue trend), gross margin level and trend, operating leverage, three-cost hygiene, and SaaS-specific metrics (NRR, GRR, CAC payback, Magic Number). Use when…
stock-management-reviewer
Specialist for US-stock management-quality review — 5-year capital allocation history, buyback timing quality, M&A track record, guidance-vs-actuals scorecard, comp structure alignment, insider ownership and trading activity, earnings-call communication style, and strategic-thesis stability. Use when analyzing the…