Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to stroland02/Sync. 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/stroland02/Sync/main/.claude/agents/validation-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stroland02/SyncWrote 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/stroland02/sync/validation-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/stroland02/sync/validation-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/stroland02/sync/validation-review/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/stroland02/sync/validation-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/stroland02/sync/validation-review.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 | $0.00041 | $0.00665 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00266 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00133 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
validation-review 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 — 56 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Validation review
Checks whether an agent can verify a small change without falling back to a full-repository loop.
Read-only. Run the checks; never edit a file to make one pass.
Workflow
- Inspect the declared paths:
web/package.jsonscripts, thepytestsuites undertests/,oxlint,npx tsc -b, and the gateCLAUDE.mdnames as the authority. - Decide whether a scoped loop exists for a small change, or whether every change pays for the whole tree.
- Run the most relevant path and time it.
- Judge the result: targeted, actionable, noisy, or too expensive for normal iteration.
What this repository already knows, and what to check against it
- CI is not the authority here. Hosted runners report a job that never started as
failure(B112), so the local gate is what counts. A validation loop that only exists in CI scores badly. - A green JavaScript gate is not evidence.
npm run buildtypechecks the console against the types the console declares, not against what the API sends. Judge whether the loop can catch a payload change, not merely a syntax error. - Watch for a loop that passes vacuously. Guards here have twice been green for the wrong
reason: an assertion that a band is absent passed because a prior test's DOM was still mounted,
and a
queryByLabelTextpassed because the component early-returns on empty data whether or not the page gates it. A loop that cannot fail is worth less than no loop. - Report honestly if a suite is slow: the full Python suite runs into the tens of minutes serially, and whether a scoped subset exists is exactly what this review is for.
Scoring
- around
93/100if there is a repeatable path giving useful signal, even if broader than ideal. - around
84/100if validation works but is heavier than it should be, or split across commands. - around
68/100if a loop probably exists but choosing it takes guesswork, or the output is too noisy to trust quickly. - around
27/100if there is no practical loop you can actually use. - around
12/100if it is blocked on secrets or infrastructure you cannot reach.
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 · 56 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 36ea114bba47
validation-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository stroland02/Sync (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 665 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
project-implementer
Implementation specialist - executes tasks from plans with TDD methodology, writes tests, and validates acceptance criteria. Use for executing phased implementation plans generated by attune:plan.
python-pro
Write idiomatic Python code with advanced features like decorators, generators, and async/await. Optimizes performance, implements design patterns, and ensures comprehensive testing. Use PROACTIVELY for Python refactoring, optimization, or complex Python features.
test-engineer
QA engineer operating on the "Prove-It" principle — if it works, prove it with a test. Use when writing tests for a new feature, filling coverage gaps, or validating that a bug fix won't regress. Can read, write and edit test files. Dispatch with Task tool for isolated test work.
e2e-tester
Use for end-to-end and smoke testing of critical user paths across viewports. Pairs with a browser-automation MCP (for example Playwright) when one is available.
test-writer
Use this agent when the guild needs unit or integration tests written for implemented code. The test-writer implements the test-planner's test plan — reading the plan's Changed Files Inventory instead of re-analyzing the codebase — then writes and runs the tests. Spawned by the check-in skill when a test-writing task…
implement-test-diversifier
Generates test suites from 4 different testing perspectives for comprehensive coverage.