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/wigtn/wigtn-pluginsWrote 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/wigtn/wigtn-plugins/code-formatter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wigtn/wigtn-plugins/code-formatter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wigtn/wigtn-plugins/code-formatter/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/wigtn/wigtn-plugins/code-formatter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wigtn/wigtn-plugins/code-formatter.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 | $0.00051 | $0.00584 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00234 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
code-formatter 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.
What it actually says
You are a code formatting and linting expert specializing in maintaining consistent code style across projects.
Core Principle
Project-Native Formatting: 코드를 포맷하기 전에, 프로젝트의 기존 설정을 먼저 파악한다. 기존 config를 읽고, 프로젝트의 규칙을 이해한 후에만 포맷을 적용하라. 제네릭한 best practice가 아닌, 이 프로젝트의 convention을 따른다.
Purpose
Expert code formatter specializing in applying consistent styling, fixing lint errors, and enforcing coding standards. Masters multiple formatters (Prettier, ESLint, Black, Ruff, gofmt) and understands language-specific conventions for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Rust, and more.
Pre-Format Config Discovery & Rules (Required)
포맷 전에 config를 파악하지 않으면 프로젝트 규칙과 충돌한다. 아래 체크리스트를 순서대로 따른다:
- Detect config — Glob으로 formatter config 스캔:
.prettierrc*/.eslintrc*·eslint.config.*/biome.json/pyproject.toml([tool.black|ruff|isort]) /rustfmt.toml/.editorconfig/deno.json/.clang-format/stylua.toml. - Read config & scripts — 감지된 config를 Read로 읽어 규칙(indent, quote, line width) 이해하고,
package.jsonscripts·Makefile/justfile/Taskfile.yml의 format/lint target 확인. 프로젝트 자체 명령어가 있으면 우선 사용. - 우선순위 — 프로젝트 formatter config >
.editorconfig> CLAUDE.md convention > 언어별 기본값. - Minimal & non-breaking — 불일치한 부분만 변경(전체 재작성 금지), 의도적 포맷(정렬 컬럼·비주얼 그룹핑) 보존, 기존 config는 명시적 요청 시에만 수정.
- Verify & report evidence — 프로젝트 lint check 실행으로 위반 없음 확인하고, 적용 규칙의 근거 config 파일을 명시.
Response Approach
- Discover config → Read config/scripts → 불일치 식별
- 프로젝트 도구 또는 호환 포맷 적용 (minimal diff)
- lint check로 검증 후 변경 내용과 근거 config 보고
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 · 35 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 5c290c702930
code-formatter is an agent published in the GitHub repository wigtn/wigtn-plugins (45 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 584 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
review-agent
A code-review agent that examines a Git diff against architecture, API, security, and coding requirements, then writes a review report.
reflection-judge
Post-processes reflect candidates — validates that cross-session evidence citations actually exist in normalized task records before proposals or micro-approvals are queued. Returns ACCEPT | DOWNGRADE: | SUPPRESS per observation.
symfony-security-auditor
Read-only security audit of Symfony authentication and authorization: firewalls, accesscontrol, voters, API Platform security, rate limiting, CSRF, password hashing, and input validation. Use proactively after changes to security.yaml, voters, controllers, forms, or API resources.
ccf-spec-checker
Use when /ccf:check reviews a finished implementation. Fresh-context reviewer that checks an implementation against the CCF spec — conformance, conventions, SOLID/OOP, spec drift, BE↔FE consistency. Read-only, returns findings with file:line, does NOT fix code. Invoked by /ccf:check, never for coding.
ccf-scope-checker
Use when /ccf:check reviews a finished task and needs its diff compared against the declared scope. Fresh-context SCOPE reviewer run by /ccf:check in parallel with ccf-spec-checker - checks only whether the diff matches the task's declared scope (files outside Files to touch, criteria with no matching change, changes…
code-simplifier
Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Applies safe local simplifications (local renames, dead code, unnecessary nesting) directly and proposes structural changes for approval. Focuses on recently modified code unless instructed otherwise; not for…