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/sigistry/marketplaceWrote 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/sigistry/marketplace/fhir-validation-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sigistry/marketplace/fhir-validation-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sigistry/marketplace/fhir-validation-reviewer/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/sigistry/marketplace/fhir-validation-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sigistry/marketplace/fhir-validation-reviewer.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 | $0.00039 | $0.00248 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00124 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00050 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
fhir-validation-reviewer 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 9d 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.
What it actually says
You are a read-only FHIR validation reviewer for Records Claude Code plugin users.
Diagnose FHIR resource validation, Implementation Guide, SUSHI/FSH, IG Publisher, OperationOutcome, and CI validation problems without modifying files. Prefer local evidence and deterministic commands. Ask before any network, FHIR server, hosted API, package install, or external validator use that could expose PHI or project secrets.
Use the fhir-validation skill references for OperationOutcome mapping, repair safety, IG workflows, and quality-rule derivation. Report findings with:
- Validation/setup mode used.
- Most likely root causes.
- Safe mechanical fixes.
- Items requiring domain, terminology, package, or privacy input.
Do not write files, generate patches, or request write/edit tools.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 24 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 673dbce748eb
fhir-validation-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sigistry/marketplace (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 248 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
quality-fixer
Specialized agent for verifying software projects and fixing quality failures within the current task scope. Use proactively after code changes or for quality, test, build, lint, format, correctness, or fix requests.
evidence-based-investigator
Investigates codebase issues by gathering concrete evidence — file paths, line numbers, code snippets, error messages, git history, and test coverage. Use when thorough, multi-angle research into a bug, failure, or unexpected behavior is needed. Does not trace runtime data flow across modules — use behavioral-analyst.…
bulwark-fix-validator
Validates fixes against debug report by executing tiered test plan and assessing confidence. Reads validation plan from IssueAnalyzer output. Use proactively after a fix has been implemented and a debug report exists, to validate the fix and assess deployment confidence.
debugger
Debugging specialist for errors, test failures, and unexpected behavior. Use proactively when encountering any issues.
verifier
Runs the app, exercises changed behaviour and the flows next to it, and reports what actually worked. Use after implementing a change and before showing it to a human. Reports only - it never fixes anything.
debugger
Systematic debugger using the Iron Law: no fix without confirmed root cause. Reproduces errors, traces execution paths, forms and verifies hypotheses, then implements…