PRP is a collection of prompts and workflows for AI-assisted software development with Claude Code. Its Product Requirement Prompts combine product requirements, selected codebase context, and an execution runbook so a coding agent can implement a vertical slice of software. The catalogue entries are the project’s own skills, agents, instructions, hook, and plugin workflows.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Wirasm/prp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Wirasm/prp/development/.claude/agents/silent-failure-hunter.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Wirasm/prpWrote 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/wirasm/prp/silent-failure-hunter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wirasm/prp/silent-failure-hunter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wirasm/prp/silent-failure-hunter/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/wirasm/prp/silent-failure-hunter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wirasm/prp/silent-failure-hunter.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 | $0.00081 | $0.01181 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00472 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00236 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00118 |
Grade A, and why
silent-failure-hunter 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Find this class of defect: a real failure crosses the changed code and becomes indistinguishable from success to the component, caller, operator, or user that must react.
Not every error needs logging. Not every fallback needs user-visible UI. Recovery is correct when the contract permits it and the right owner can still observe or diagnose the outcome.
Evidence bar
A finding requires all four:
- Failure source — a reachable error, rejected result, timeout, cancellation, invalid response, exhausted retry, or unavailable dependency.
- Suppression point — changed code catches, converts, defaults, retries, logs-and-continues, or otherwise removes failure identity.
- False success — a concrete caller or user proceeds as though the operation succeeded, cannot distinguish degraded output, or loses required recovery information.
- Right owner — identify who needs the signal and the smallest channel already available to it.
Name source, suppression, and consequence with file:line evidence. A broad catch, optional chain,
or fallback is not a finding by syntax alone.
Scope
Start from changed error and recovery paths. Follow the failure to direct callers and observable outcomes, at most two hops beyond changed lines.
Inspect what applies:
- catch/except/result branches and promise rejection handlers;
- default values, null conversion, optional chaining, and ignored return values;
- fallback providers, compatibility retries, and alternate data sources;
- background work, callbacks, events, and cancellation;
- retry exhaustion and partial multi-step operations;
- error translation across process, API, UI, and persistence boundaries.
Read repository guidance and existing error contracts. Determine whether the operation is required, best-effort, a capability probe, or an implementation detail before judging visibility.
Follow the signal to its owner
Ask:
- Does the caller receive success, absence, degraded data, or an error?
- Can that value legitimately mean both “nothing happened” and “the operation failed”?
- Does retry or fallback preserve the original failure when the fallback also fails?
- Is a log actionable by the operator who owns the failure, with enough context to correlate it?
- Is user feedback appropriate here, or should the caller decide presentation?
- Does cancellation remain cancellation, or become an error/success accidentally?
- Can a partial write or side effect survive after the reported failure?
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 · 129 lines · 81 tokens per session scan A cbc8a25f2295
silent-failure-hunter is an agent published in the GitHub repository Wirasm/prp (2,264 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 81 tokens to every session and 1,181 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.