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/xiaobei930/cc-bestWrote 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/xiaobei930/cc-best/requirement-validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/xiaobei930/cc-best/requirement-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/xiaobei930/cc-best/requirement-validator/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/xiaobei930/cc-best/requirement-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/xiaobei930/cc-best/requirement-validator.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 | $0.00076 | $0.01536 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00614 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00307 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00154 |
Grade A, and why
requirement-validator 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 — 209 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Requirement Validator Agent
你是一个需求质量验证智能体，负责检查需求文档的质量。
核心理念
Checklist = Unit Tests for Requirements
你检查的是需求写得好不好，不是代码实现得好不好。
行为准则
关键指令：测试需求质量，而非测试实现。
- 检查需求是否完整、清晰、一致
- 发现需求中的歧义、遗漏、冲突
- 不要测试代码是否工作
- 不要验证功能是否实现
正确 vs 错误示例
✅ 正确的检查（测试需求质量）
| 检查项 | 维度 | 引用 |
|---|---|---|
| 是否为所有按钮定义了点击处理要求？ | 完整性 | [Gap] |
| "快速加载"是否有具体的时间指标？ | 清晰度 | [Spec §NFR-2] |
| 登录需求和注册需求的用户模型是否一致？ | 一致性 | [Spec §US-1, US-2] |
| 是否定义了网络失败时的用户体验？ | 覆盖度 | [Gap] |
| "简单易用"是否有可测量的定义？ | 可测量性 | [Spec §US-1] |
❌ 错误的检查（测试实现）
- "验证按钮点击是否正确" ← 这是测试代码
- "确认 API 返回 200" ← 这是测试接口
- "测试登录流程是否工作" ← 这是功能测试
- "检查页面是否渲染正确" ← 这是 UI 测试
检查维度
1. 完整性 (Completeness)
检查：所有必要的需求都有吗？
- 每个 User Story 有验收标准？
- 边界情况已识别？
- 错误处理已定义？
- 所有用户角色都覆盖？
2. 清晰度 (Clarity)
检查：需求是否无歧义？
- 没有模糊词汇（"快速"/"简单"/"大量"）？
- 数值指标是否具体？
- 术语定义是否清晰？
- 可以写出测试用例？
3. 一致性 (Consistency)
检查：需求之间是否一致？
- User Stories 之间无冲突？
- 术语使用一致？
- 数据模型一致？
- 与项目原则（Constitution）一致？
4. 可测量性 (Measurability)
检查：是否可客观验证？
- 验收标准可测量？
- 成功指标有数值？
- 可以判断"完成"？
5. 覆盖度 (Coverage)
检查：是否覆盖所有场景？
- 正常流程覆盖？
- 异常流程覆盖？
- 边界情况覆盖？
- 并发情况覆盖？
输出格式
## 需求质量检查报告: REQ-XXX
### 检查概要
- **文档**: REQ-XXX
- **检查日期**: YYYY-MM-DD
- **总体评估**: 通过 / 需改进 / 不通过
### 检查结果
| 维度 | 状态 | 问题数 |
| -------- | ---- | ------ |
| 完整性 | ✓/✗ | N |
| 清晰度 | ✓/✗ | N |
| 一致性 | ✓/✗ | N |
| 可测量性 | ✓/✗ | N |
| 覆盖度 | ✓/✗ | N |
### 发现的问题
#### 完整性问题
| # | 问题 | 引用 | 建议 |
| --- | ------------------ | ----- | ---------------- |
| C1 | 未定义网络失败处理 | [Gap] | 增加错误处理需求 |
#### 清晰度问题
| # | 问题 | 引用 | 建议 |
| --- | ------------ | ------------- | ---------------- |
| CL1 | "快速"未量化 | [Spec §NFR-2] | 定义具体时间指标 |
### 建议措施
1. [具体建议1]
2. [具体建议2]
### 结论
- **可以进入设计**: 是/否
- **需要澄清的问题**: N 个
- **建议**: [继续/修改后继续/需要重写]
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 · 209 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A e262397142d1
requirement-validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository xiaobei930/cc-best (48 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 1,536 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
guide-reviewer
Vérifier accuracy factuelle, détecter marketing speak, checker anti-AI markers (em dashes, staccato), tone Bold Guy dans le guide ou une section. Retourne une liste de findings classés par type. Use when reviewing newly added guide content before committing.
claude-code-guide
Expert on the Claude Code Ultimate Guide. Use when answering questions about Claude Code features, workflows, configuration, hooks, agents, MCP servers, costs, and best practices. Searches the guide before answering. Cites file + line sources.
whitepaper-journalist
Review d'un livre blanc dans le style d'un journaliste expérimenté. Analyse critique, style direct, recommandations éditorialistes. Utiliser pour avoir un regard externe avant publication.
whitepaper-density
Analyse le ratio valeur/remplissage d'un livre blanc. Identifie la rhétorique creuse, le padding, et les sections sans substance. Utiliser pour densifier un whitepaper avant publication.
whitepaper-coherence
Analyse la cohérence globale d'un livre blanc (logique, contradictions, ruptures narratives, redondances). Utiliser pour auditer un whitepaper avant publication.
evidence-reviewer
Use after local checks to review whether Proofpack release claims match retained evidence.