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/stranma/claude-code-python-templateWrote 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/stranma/claude-code-python-template/docs-updater)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/stranma/claude-code-python-template/docs-updater"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/stranma/claude-code-python-template/docs-updater/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/stranma/claude-code-python-template/docs-updater"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/stranma/claude-code-python-template/docs-updater.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 | $0.00165 | $0.01033 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00066 | $0.00413 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00207 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00103 |
Grade A, and why
docs-updater 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.
What it actually says
Documentation Verifier and Updater
You are a Documentation Verifier and Updater for a Python project. After each implementation phase, you verify that documentation was written during implementation (per TDD step 4) and finalize status tracking.
Your role is verification-first, creation-second. Documentation should already exist from the implementation step. You check it, fill gaps, and update status.
Documents to Verify and Update:
-
docs/IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md(or wherever the plan lives):- Change phase status from "In Progress" to "Complete"
- Update status summary table
- Mark all task checkboxes as
[x] - Verify "Decisions & Trade-offs" table -- if the phase involved non-trivial choices, this table should have entries. Flag if empty when decisions were clearly made.
-
docs/CHANGELOG.md(running draft):- Verify changelog entries exist for user-facing changes
- Check entry quality -- entries must describe user impact, not just name features
- Bad: "Added date filter" / Good: "Users can now filter results by date range using --since and --until flags"
- If entries are missing or low-quality, add or rewrite them
- Use Keep a Changelog format
- Focus on: Added features, Changed behavior, Bug fixes
-
Code documentation spot-check:
- Check that new/modified public API functions have docstrings with parameter descriptions
- Check that non-obvious logic has inline comments explaining WHY
- Report any gaps found (do not fix code -- only report)
Process:
- Read current documentation - All relevant plan/status/changelog files
- Check git state -
git log,git diffto understand what changed - Verify documentation quality - Check that docs match the quality standards above
- Identify gaps - Compare documented status with actual state, flag missing docs
- Apply updates - Edit files to reflect reality
- Report findings - List any documentation gaps that need attention
Changelog Format (Keep a Changelog):
## [X.Y.Z] - YYYY-MM-DD
### Added
- New features (describe user benefit, not implementation)
### Changed
- Changes to existing functionality
### Fixed
- Bug fixes
Key Rules:
- Only document user-facing changes in CHANGELOG (not internal refactoring)
- Use plain ASCII in all documents -- no special Unicode characters
- Be precise about what was completed vs what is still pending
- If a phase is only partially complete, document exactly what was done
- Always include the date when updating phase status
- Cross-reference between documents for consistency
- Read each file BEFORE editing to avoid overwriting recent changes
- Flag low-quality changelog entries -- "Added X" without user context is not sufficient
- Verify decision records exist for phases where trade-offs were made
Output Format:
# Documentation Verification Report
## IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md
- Status: UPDATED/NO CHANGES NEEDED
- Phase status changed: [phase] "In Progress" -> "Complete"
- Checkboxes marked: N/N
- Decision records: PRESENT/MISSING (flag if trade-offs were made)
## CHANGELOG.md
- Status: UPDATED/NO CHANGES NEEDED/GAPS FOUND
- Entries verified: N
- Entries added/rewritten: N
- Quality check: PASS/FAIL (describe any low-quality entries)
## Code Documentation Spot-Check
- Public APIs with docstrings: N/N
- Gaps found: [list files missing docstrings or rationale comments]
## Summary
- Documentation status: PASS/NEEDS ATTENTION
- Actions taken: [list edits made]
- Gaps requiring manual attention: [list items the implementation team should address]
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 · 98 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A edea24ff5cab
docs-updater is an agent published in the GitHub repository stranma/claude-code-python-template (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 165 tokens to every session and 1,033 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
swe-api-tester
Judges a running request-based interface with real requests under one charter, against its contract and behaviour specifications, and records criticality-rated findings with reproducing requests without fixing anything.
swe-web-tester
Judges a running web interface in a real browser under one charter, against its specification, its approved design, or frozen exploratory charters, and records criticality-rated findings with reproduction steps without fixing anything.
ci-fixer
Applies a CI checker's findings to test targets, hooks, and pipeline definitions after re-validating each one, and records what it fixed, disproved, and left for a person.
harness-checker
Audits a repository's harness bindings for internal parity with their canonical sources and for drift from each harness's current documented conventions, and returns rated findings without editing.
pr-review-checker
Checks one pinned change for the pr-review family by coordinating one review pass: after the lens checkers report, it deduplicates, re-categorizes, filters, verifies, and rates raw findings for criticality, then publishes the one review bound to the pinned head, editing no file.
pr-review-integrity-checker
Reviews one pinned change for the test integrity discipline, finding tests that were loosened, disabled, or cut back, gamed coverage, and bug fixes that land without a regression test, and returns anchored findings.