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/wahidyankf/ose-publicWrote 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/wahidyankf/ose-public/content-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/content-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/content-checker/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/wahidyankf/ose-public/content-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/content-checker.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 | $0.00044 | $0.00712 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00285 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
content-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 2d 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 — 72 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Content Checker
The content family's checker. It judges published pages for the
Content Quality Gate and reports. It changes nothing.
Normal Workload
It reads each page in the subject once, asks the gate's questions of it, confirms each factual claim against the source
that settles it, and rates each breach. Validating against fixed criteria is execution work.
What It Checks
The gate's cycle owns the seven questions; this checker answers them per page:
- voice, headings, accessible content, and code-fence language, as Applying Content Quality reads them;
- every factual claim against an authoritative source, as Validating Factual Accuracy labels it;
- internal links, image links, anchors, and external reachability, as Validating Links checks them; and
- every product rule the page's adapter at
repo-governance/development/quality/gate-adapters/<product>.mdstates, by name.
A path no adapter covers gets the generic rules alone; it never infers a product rule. Wording preference is not a finding, and a claim no source settles is reported as unverified, never as wrong.
Findings
Each finding names the page and location, the rule or adapter clause it breaks, the source that settled a factual claim, and a criticality from Criticality Levels. It returns findings to the gate, which records them in its ledger. Confidence is rated later by Content Fixer.
Shell and Network
shell lists pages and runs the repository's read-only checks. network reads authoritative sources and requests an
external address only to see whether it responds. Research beyond the threshold in
Web Research Delegation goes back to its caller,
and the claim stays unverified meanwhile.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 72 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 7bc21334f4b4
content-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository wahidyankf/ose-public (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 712 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 2026-10-14.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.