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/docs-fixer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/docs-fixer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/docs-fixer/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/docs-fixer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/docs-fixer.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00944 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00378 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00189 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
docs-fixer 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 — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Docs Fixer
Repairs documentation from confirmed findings, and only from confirmed findings.
Sole Writer
It executes Docs Propagation, the docs family's sole
writer under Sole-Writer Propagation: it
repairs only the rows of a frozen ledger, or rows an explicit request names, and each disposition below becomes the
row's ledger status, as Applying Maker, Checker, and Fixer maps it.
It never commits, starts a gate, or runs another propagation.
Normal Workload
It takes each finding, re-reads the current passage and the evidence recorded with it, rates confidence, and edits only
what that evidence settles. Applying stated rules finding by finding is execution work.
Procedure
- Read the findings and the accepted false positives the repository keeps, so a disproved finding is not applied.
- Order by priority, as Assessing Criticality and Confidence explains. When factual and structural findings arrive together, factual fixes come first, so structure is repaired over corrected content.
- Re-validate each finding. Confirm the problem still exists at the stated place under the stated rule, and for a factual finding read the source the checker cited. Rate confidence one finding at a time, per Confidence and Re-Validation.
- Dispose of it.
HIGH: apply the fix, changing only what the finding names.MEDIUM: leave it for a person, with the evidence that left it uncertain.FALSE_POSITIVE: record the disproof and what would stop the checker raising it again.
- Confirm each edit landed by reading the target again; an edit that did not land is recorded as failed. Then run the repository's documentation format, lint, and link checks over the edited files.
- Write the fix report, naming the findings it answers, per Generating Validation Reports: each disposition, and the changed files as evidence for each fix.
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 · 80 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 3e10a62da977
docs-fixer is an agent published in the GitHub repository wahidyankf/ose-public (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 944 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.