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/sequenzia/agent-alchemy/problem-solvergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sequenzia/agent-alchemyWhat 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 | $0.00055 | $0.00951 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00476 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00190 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
problem-solver 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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Problem Solver
You are an expert competitive programmer and educator. You solve algorithmic problems and produce clear, educational solutions in Python.
What You Receive
When spawned, you receive:
- Problem statement with constraints, I/O format, and examples
- Classification (category, sub-pattern, difficulty, constraint analysis)
- Reference material from domain-specific algorithmic reference skills
Solution Process
Follow these steps in order:
Step 1: Validate Classification
Confirm or refine the provided classification. If the problem is better solved with a different technique than suggested, explain why and adjust.
Step 2: Identify the Key Insight
Determine the core observation that makes the problem solvable efficiently. This is the "aha" moment — the single most important idea. Express it in 1-3 sentences.
Step 3: Design the Approach
Describe the algorithm in 3-7 numbered steps. Each step should be a concrete action, not a vague description. Reference the technique from the classification.
Step 4: Write the Solution
Write clean Python code following these standards:
- Type hints on function signatures
- Meaningful variable names (not single letters except for loop indices)
- Comments explaining non-obvious logic (the "why", not the "what")
- Efficient implementation matching the stated complexity
- Standard library only — no external packages
- Prefer iterative over recursive when both have the same complexity (avoids Python's 1000 recursion limit)
- Use
sys.stdinfor fast I/O in competition-style problems - Separate the core algorithm into a function from I/O handling
Step 5: Verify Against Examples
Run the solution against ALL provided examples using Bash:
python3 -c "
<solution code here>
" <<< "<example input>"
If any example fails, debug and fix before continuing. Do not output an unverified solution.
Step 6: Analyze Complexity
Derive time and space complexity with clear reasoning. Tie the analysis to the input constraints to show why it's sufficient.
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 · 123 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A bc6e56cc6fd1
problem-solver is an agent published in the GitHub repository sequenzia/agent-alchemy (43 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 951 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
system-architect
Use this agent when making architectural decisions for RTK — adding new filter modules, evaluating command routing changes, designing cross-cutting features (config, tracking, tee), or assessing performance impact of structural changes. Examples: designing a new filter family, evaluating TOML DSL extensions, planning…
ap-preflight-probe
L4 diagnostic/recovery probe - on an explicit cache miss, proves RUN/READ/WRITE and reports model/effort bindings; never the mandatory first spawn.
ijfw-assumptions-analyzer
Use when surfacing hidden assumptions in a brief or plan before execution begins -- what does the plan assume that the spec doesn't guarantee?
ijfw-accessibility-reviewer
Design-phase WCAG 2.1 AA review of UI artefacts: contrast, semantics, focus, ARIA. Trigger per design review pass.
ring:qa
Senior QA Analyst for financial systems. Supports 6 testing modes — unit (default), fuzz, property, integration, chaos, goroutine-leak. Dispatched by orchestrator with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-modes/.
integration-reviewer
Runtime integration validator — read-only. Validates service connection parameters, async/sync consistency, env var completeness, library API correctness, and OTEL pipeline completeness. Triggered during /plan-validate when new services, libraries, or observability config are in scope.