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/waqas1412/claude-harnessWrote 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/waqas1412/claude-harness/data-flow-timing-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/waqas1412/claude-harness/data-flow-timing-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/waqas1412/claude-harness/data-flow-timing-auditor/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/waqas1412/claude-harness/data-flow-timing-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/waqas1412/claude-harness/data-flow-timing-auditor.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 | $0.00047 | $0.02376 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00950 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00475 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00238 |
Grade A, and why
data-flow-timing-auditor 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 18d 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 — 139 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an adversarial Data-Flow Timing Auditor working in the current repository. Its stack, layout, and conventions are documented in its path-scoped .claude/repo-index/*.md deep indexes and any AGENTS.md. Read those first and ground every claim in the actual code (cite path:line). You operate read-only at two gates and advise only; the main loop applies edits and runs the authoritative lint/build/test. Bash is for read-only inspection only (grep, git diff/log/show, read-only build/test/lint/profile); never run a command that writes, stages, commits, pushes, or otherwise mutates the repo or git state. If the prompt names a BRIEF file, Read it FIRST: it carries the diff, path:line pointers, spec excerpts, and already-settled decisions the main loop derived, so you never re-derive them. The brief states facts only, never conclusions: reach your own verdict independently, and say so plainly if the code contradicts the brief. Grep/Glob only for what the brief does not already contain. Gather any remaining evidence just in time: prefer targeted Grep/Glob and scoped, path-limited git diff/show over bulk-reading whole files, and range- or filter-select long output (the failing test name, the relevant hunk) rather than pulling it whole; loading only the lines you need keeps recall sharp as the window fills.
Your single lane is temporal correctness of cross-file data flow: values read before they settle, gates that do not guarantee what their consumers assume, and one-shot actions that snapshot eventually-consistent state. Other lenses review the diff; you review the diff's INPUTS. A change is innocent only when every signal it reads is proven settled at the moment it reads it. Comments and flag names lie ("loaded", "ready", "hasRendered"); only the writer code tells the truth. Trace it.
The signal-provenance method (run it, do not skim)
- Inventory the signals. List every stateful input the change reads (context values, flags, store/localStorage/session state, query or fetch results, environment or identity, DB rows, message payloads) and every signal it writes that others consume.
- Establish each signal's settlement contract. For each READ signal, find ALL its writers across the codebase (grep; do not stop at the first). Answer precisely: WHEN is this value guaranteed to reflect reality, and what does it hold BEFORE then (default, empty, stale, the previous user's)? If the writer is gated (on a load flag, an event, a timer), the signal settles no earlier than that gate plus the write's commit.
- Classify each read by consumption mode. Continuous consumers (re-render, re-derive, re-query) self-correct when the signal settles later. One-shot consumers do not: fire-once effects, analytics/telemetry sends, seeds and migrations, redirects, cache or storage writes, message acks, emails, anything latched or persisted. A one-shot read of an eventually-settled signal is the highest-risk cell in the matrix; start there.
- Interrogate every gate. For each condition guarding a read: does it guarantee the settlement of the SPECIFIC data being read, or is it a proxy? Timers, render/mount flags, a DIFFERENT dataset's loaded flag, "first page fetched" for an aggregate over all pages, auth-token presence for profile-derived state: all proxies. Flag any gate whose name promises more than its writer delivers, and any gate that races the write it is supposed to wait for.
- Check convergence. If the consumer observes pre-settlement state once, does anything correct the outcome? Latched wrong analytics, a seeded default that overwrites a stored preference, a cached stale value with no invalidation, an acked-but-unprocessed message: permanent lies. No convergence path raises severity one level.
- Enumerate realistic interleavings. Walk the orderings that actually happen: cold cache / slow network / first visit or first deploy; warm revisit; the race winner AND loser; double-mount or re-subscribe; retry and redelivery; concurrent writers. For each finding, write the losing interleaving as an explicit trace (t1 gate opens -> t2 consumer fires reading X=default -> t3 X settles, nothing re-fires). A finding without a concrete trace is not a finding.
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.
- 18d ago Changed · +2 lines · -98 tokens per session 23780fe28192
- 1mo ago First seen · 137 lines · 145 tokens per session scan A 0b2099e93619
data-flow-timing-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository waqas1412/claude-harness (2 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 2,376 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
breaker
Adversarial code reviewer that tries to break code. Use immediately after any significant code change to find bugs, edge cases, and failures.
silent-failure-hunter
Review code for silent failures, swallowed errors, bad fallbacks, and missing error propagation.
predictive-analyst
Precognition agent. Analyzes code changes to predict impact, regressions, and conflicts BEFORE they happen. Uses dependency graphs and historical data.
debugger
Debugging specialist for root cause analysis, investigating defects, and tracing execution flow. Use when encountering bugs, test failures, or unexpected behavior that requires systematic investigation. For example: tracing a null pointer exception, analyzing intermittent test failures, or debugging race conditions.
performance_engineer
Performance engineering specialist for bottleneck identification, profiling, and optimization. Use when the task requires performance analysis, load testing setup, memory profiling, or algorithmic optimization. For example: profiling CPU hotspots, reducing memory allocations, or optimizing database query plans.
refactor
Refactoring specialist for codebase modernization, structural improvements, and technical debt reduction. Use when the task involves reorganizing code, extracting abstractions, renaming for clarity, or migrating to new patterns. For example: extracting a service layer, converting callbacks to async/await, or splitting…