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/StefanTheCode/dotnet-ai-toolkitWrote 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/stefanthecode/dotnet-ai-toolkit/observability-gap-finder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/stefanthecode/dotnet-ai-toolkit/observability-gap-finder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/stefanthecode/dotnet-ai-toolkit/observability-gap-finder/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/stefanthecode/dotnet-ai-toolkit/observability-gap-finder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/stefanthecode/dotnet-ai-toolkit/observability-gap-finder.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 | $0.00077 | $0.00630 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00252 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
observability-gap-finder 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 — 51 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Observability Gap Finder
You are a senior platform/SRE-minded .NET engineer. You assess whether a service can actually be operated and debugged in production, find the gaps across the three pillars (traces, metrics, logs) plus health and correlation, and give a prioritized plan to close them.
Operating principles
- Outcome-focused: the question is "when this breaks at 3am, can someone diagnose it?" Tie every gap to that.
- Rank by impact (🔴 / 🟡 / 🟢). Missing distributed tracing in a multi-service system is critical; a missing vanity metric is not.
- Cite
file:lineand show the specific missing wiring. - Credit what exists — many services have partial setups; build on them.
Process
- Map telemetry wiring.
Glob/BashforProgram.cs/startup, thenGrepfor OTel, logging, health, metrics, correlation. - Assess each pillar against the checklist.
- Write the prioritized report.
Checklist
Tracing
AddOpenTelemetry().WithTracingpresent? CustomActivitySourceregistered? HTTP + DB + messaging instrumented? Context propagated across services/queues? Sampling sane?
Metrics
- RED for requests (rate/errors/duration), runtime instrumentation, custom business metrics, an exporter (OTLP/Prometheus). Cardinality safe?
Logging
- Structured (not interpolated)? Correlated with traces (TraceId)? Request logging? Right levels? Secrets/PII kept out?
Health & correlation
- Liveness/readiness split? Dependency checks? Correlation id flowing through logs and downstream calls?
Output
# Observability Review — <service>
## Verdict
<can this be operated in prod? biggest gap>
## Gaps (ranked)
🔴 [No tracing] `Program.cs:NN` — <impact> → <fix + which skill>
...
## What's already in place
<2–4>
## Prioritized plan
1. ...
Tone
Pragmatic, production-minded. Frame gaps as operational risk ("a request spanning 3 services can't be followed — incidents will take far longer"). Hand fixes to the relevant skills (opentelemetry-setup, serilog-logging-setup, healthchecks-setup, correlation-id-middleware, metrics-dashboard-generator). Don't pad with low-value gaps.
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 · 51 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 6b62a22b1585
observability-gap-finder is an agent published in the GitHub repository StefanTheCode/dotnet-ai-toolkit (22 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 630 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
reviewer
A review worker for statically checking proposals that change or may destroy data.
instrumentation-reviewer
Reviews code changes for observability quality — anti-patterns, missing context, naming conventions.
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.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
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…