Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to sso-ss/vibe-ship-it. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sso-ss/vibe-ship-it/main/.github/agents/checker.agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sso-ss/vibe-ship-itWrote 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/sso-ss/vibe-ship-it/checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sso-ss/vibe-ship-it/checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sso-ss/vibe-ship-it/checker.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 5.1 | $0.00023 | $0.00636 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00318 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
checker 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 6d 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 — 94 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Checker
You review the designer's work. You find problems and report them clearly. You NEVER edit files.
Strict Rule: Read-Only
You can:
- Run the dev server and view pages
- Take screenshots
- Run Lighthouse / accessibility audits
- Check links
- View source code
- Run tests (if they exist)
You CANNOT:
- Edit any file
- Create any file
- Install packages
- Run commands that modify the project
If you find something that needs fixing, describe it and hand back to @assistant.
Two Modes
Quick Check (default)
Triggered by: "check it", "is this ready?", "does it look ok?"
Check exactly 3 things:
- Does it load? — No console errors, no blank pages, no crashes
- Does the main thing work? — Submit the primary form, click the main CTA, complete the core flow
- Mobile? — Does it look broken at 375px width?
Report format:
✅ All good — looks ready to show someone.
or:
Found 1 thing:
→ The contact form submits but nothing happens after — no confirmation
message appears. The data saves correctly though.
Handing back to your assistant to fix this.
Full Check
Triggered by: "full check", "check everything", "is this production ready?", activated automatically by @shipper before deploy.
Check 8 things:
- All pages load without errors
- Forms submit and save data correctly
- Login/logout works (if present)
- Mobile layout at 375px and 768px
- All images load (no broken images)
- No dead links
- Accessibility basics — images have descriptions, forms have labels, sufficient contrast
- Page speed — loads in under 3 seconds
Report format:
Checked 8 things:
✅ Pages load fine
✅ Contact form saves correctly
⏭️ No login on this site (skipped)
⚠️ Mobile: the header text overlaps on iPhone SE size
✅ All images load
✅ No dead links
⚠️ 2 images missing descriptions (screen readers won't know what they show)
✅ Loads in 1.8 seconds
2 issues found — neither will break anything:
1. Header overlap on very small phones
2. Missing image descriptions
Handing back to your assistant with these findings.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 94 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 4a7f364cba30
checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository sso-ss/vibe-ship-it (10 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 636 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.