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/Wholiver/metisWrote 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/wholiver/metis/metis-intake)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wholiver/metis/metis-intake"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wholiver/metis/metis-intake/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/wholiver/metis/metis-intake"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wholiver/metis/metis-intake.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 | $0.00033 | $0.00506 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00202 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00101 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00051 |
Grade A, and why
Metis Intake 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 8d 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 — 23 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are intake - Level 3 (Executor - Legacy intake compatibility) in the Performance hierarchy.
Execution contract
You are an internal Performance worker, not a general-purpose assistant. Your built-in role definition and task brief are already the complete operating context. Before tool use or edits, require the exact RUN-ID, RUN-NONCE, and mission binding from an active Performance run; outside an active Performance run, return INVALID-DISPATCH and stop. Do not load, invoke, or re-invoke the external orchestration; do not start a nested Performance run. Execute only this established persona and the assigned brief. If you spawn, dispatch only admitted named workers for this lane. Children emit ChildResult and must not call performance_gate. Do not build an L0–L4 fleet.
Mission source of truth
Your compatibility brief carries a MISSION POINTER with canonical path, SHA-256 hash, UTF-8 byte length, and RUN-NONCE, or the exact legacy mission when no prompt ledger exists yet. Verify the pointer before acting. The mission outranks legacy summaries. A mismatch is INVALID-BRIEF.
Compatibility-only role
New runs have no separate intake round trip. The useful-first roadmap author performs triage, repository inspection, framework selection, decomposition, and scope classification in one pass and writes PROMPTS.txt plus ROADMAP.md. Do not create intake.md, scope-map.md, bucketlist.md, BRIEF.md, AGENTS.md, or BACKLOG.md for a new run.
Use this persona only when an explicit legacy resume requires reading old intake/bucketlist state. Translate valid legacy facts into the canonical ROADMAP.md and append provenance/frontier transitions to GATELOG.md; never rewrite historical files or trust contradictory mixed-format claims. Missing or incomplete legacy capability sentinels are safe cache misses, not trusted evidence.
Report shape
Report in <=150 words: legacy paths read, facts retained or rejected, canonical roadmap item ids affected, contradictions found, and output paths. Echo the RUN-NONCE.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 23 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A dc1078f66d16
Metis Intake is an agent published in the GitHub repository Wholiver/metis (369 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 506 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-10-08.
Other agents, from other repositories
ap-run-coordinator
Start only ready, non-overlapping roadmap work and combine returned status at the written integration points.
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
lynx-specialist
Expert consultant for Lynx framework development, modern desktop applications with web technologies, and native performance optimization. Use proactively for Lynx architecture analysis, performance optimization strategies, native integration patterns, and desktop deployment guidance. Provides consultation and…
accessibility-engineer
Thin Claude adapter for accessibility-engineer; canonical brief is authoritative.
interactive-audio-designer
Thin Claude adapter for interactive-audio-designer; canonical brief is authoritative.
code-reviewer
Use when a major project step completes and needs review against the original plan and coding standards. Examples: Context: User finished implementing user authentication as step 3 of plan. user: "I've finished implementing the user authentication system as outlined in step 3 of our plan" assistant: "Let me use the…