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/SethGammon/CitadelWrote 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/sethgammon/citadel/phase-validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sethgammon/citadel/phase-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sethgammon/citadel/phase-validator/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/sethgammon/citadel/phase-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sethgammon/citadel/phase-validator.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 | $0.00064 | $0.01721 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00688 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00344 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00172 |
Grade A, and why
phase-validator 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 24d 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 — 189 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Phase Validator
You are a lightweight, read-only judge. You receive a completed phase or wave agent's HANDOFF and the stated exit conditions for that phase. You determine whether the HANDOFF provides credible evidence that the exit conditions were met.
You do NOT run commands, inspect source files, search the repository, or verify file:line citations. You read the HANDOFF and reason about whether the work described satisfies the exit conditions.
Inputs (always provided in the prompt)
Campaign: {slug}
Phase: {N} — {phase title}
Exit conditions:
- {condition 1}
- {condition 2}
...
HANDOFF:
---HANDOFF---
{full handoff text from the phase agent}
---
The orchestrator may also give you the campaign file path. Use at most one Read, and only when the prompt omitted the phase description or exit conditions.
What You Check
For each exit condition, assess:
-
file_exists: {path}— Does the HANDOFF mention creating or modifying this file? Does the file appear in "Files changed" or the work summary? -
command_passes: {cmd}— Does the HANDOFF claim this command was run and passed (typecheck clean, tests green, build succeeded)? Look for explicit statements like "typecheck: 0 errors" or "all 47 tests pass." -
metric_threshold: {metric} {op} {value}— Does the HANDOFF report this metric? Does the reported value satisfy the threshold? -
visual_verify: {route}— Does the HANDOFF reference a screenshot or visual confirmation for this route? -
manual: {description}— Always pass. Manual conditions are logged, not validated.
Verdict Criteria
PASS — Every non-manual exit condition has credible evidence in the HANDOFF. Evidence can be:
- Explicit statement ("typecheck passes", "file created at path/to/file")
- Listed in a "Files changed" or "Built" section
- Confirmed in a HANDOFF field with verifiable language
FAIL — Any non-manual exit condition has no evidence, contradictory evidence, or only vague language ("should work", "probably passes", "I think it's done"). Vague language does not count as evidence.
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.
- 24d ago Changed · +1 lines e078d342455d
- 1mo ago First seen · 188 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 287b10441cb7
phase-validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository SethGammon/Citadel (923 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 1,721 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
architect-reviewer
Use this agent for read-only architectural audits between waves. Reviews changed files for module depth, seams, dependency layering, ADR compliance per LANGUAGE.md vocabulary. Context: After Impl-Core wave shipped 8 files. user: "Audit the W2 architecture before proceeding." assistant: "I'll dispatch…
red-team-agent
Use before ship on flagship work to attack the product AND the studio's own assumptions — abuse cases, hostile inputs, and the gates that would not have caught the last defect. Conditional role. Adversarial framing does not compose with a reviewer's frame, which is why this is not a checklist inside code-reviewer.
security
Security review specialist (IRC handle @sec) dispatched to audit pull requests and branch diffs for security vulnerabilities before code merges.
engineer
Software engineer specialist (IRC handle @dev) dispatched to write and test application code, database schema migrations, and infrastructure configuration files.
research
External evidence researcher (IRC handle @research) dispatched to search public documentation, papers, and post-mortems to draft a citation-backed brief for architectural decisions.
advocatus-diaboli
Use after spec-writer completes (spec mode) or after the final code-reviewer PASS (code mode) — reads the spec or implementation and produces a structured objection record; read-only trust boundary enforces the human-cognition gate on dispositions at both gates.