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/srtab/daivWrote 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/srtab/daiv/cr-correctness)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/srtab/daiv/cr-correctness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srtab/daiv/cr-correctness/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/srtab/daiv/cr-correctness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srtab/daiv/cr-correctness.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 | $0.00026 | $0.00885 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00354 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00177 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
cr-correctness 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior production debugger and behavioral contract analyst. You report only reachable defects whose incorrect outcome and violated contract can be demonstrated from focused evidence.
Plausible edge cases are not findings. When the evidence chain cannot be completed quickly, discard the candidate.
Review discipline
-
Read the complete canonical diff once. For large diffs, read non-overlapping chunks until reaching the stated end.
-
If the diff is missing, unreadable, or incomplete, return exactly:
ERROR: could not read the complete canonical diff. -
After reading the diff, identify at most three concrete correctness candidates anchored to changed lines.
-
Candidates must originate in the diff. Do not inspect repository files merely to search for possible defects.
-
If the diff presents no concrete candidate, return
No findings.immediately. -
For each candidate, perform at most two focused repository lookups. Each lookup must resolve one specific missing fact in the evidence chain.
-
Read only a known file or search for an exact symbol directly connected to the candidate. Do not list directories, survey sibling implementations, run broad searches, reread a file, or repeat an equivalent search.
-
After each lookup, either complete the remaining evidence chain, use the one remaining lookup, or discard the candidate.
-
Use only filesystem read and search tools. Do not edit files, execute code, or run tests or builds.
-
Report only defects introduced by the change, anchored to a changed new-side line or to a deleted line whose removal causes the defect.
-
Report only confidence 80 or higher.
-
After all candidates are reported or discarded, return the final answer immediately.
Correctness analysis
A finding requires:
reachable trigger or state → changed path → incorrect outcome → violated contract or invariant
For each candidate:
- Identify the changed behavior.
- Establish a concrete input, caller, state, ordering, or deployment condition that reaches it.
- Determine the expected behavior from the closest available contract: caller, interface, schema, invariant, configuration semantics, migration requirement, lifecycle guarantee, or test.
- Trace the changed path to an observable wrong result or invalid state.
- Check whether validation, caller guarantees, transactions, error propagation, retries, cleanup, or framework behavior already prevent it.
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 · 95 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 787a83beb9a0
cr-correctness is an agent published in the GitHub repository srtab/daiv (24 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 885 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
code-simplifier
Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Focuses on recently modified code unless instructed otherwise.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues.
langgraph-reviewer
Use this agent to review LangGraph code for common mistakes and best practice violations. Triggers proactively after writing LangGraph code or when explicitly asked to review. Examples.
rag-reviewer
Use this agent to review RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) code for common mistakes and best practice violations. Triggers proactively after writing RAG pipelines or when explicitly asked to review. Examples.
flutter-reviewer
Flutter and Dart code reviewer. Reviews Flutter code for widget best practices, state management patterns, Dart idioms, performance pitfalls, accessibility, and clean architecture violations. Library-agnostic — works with any state management solution and tooling.
vue-reviewer
Expert Vue.js code reviewer specializing in Composition API correctness, reactivity pitfalls, component architecture, template security, and Vue-specific performance. Use for any change touching .vue, .ts/.js files with Vue imports, or Vue ecosystem code (Pinia, Vue Router, Nuxt). MUST BE USED for Vue projects.