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/yaleh/meta-ccWrote 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/yaleh/meta-cc/agent-validation-builder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/yaleh/meta-cc/agent-validation-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yaleh/meta-cc/agent-validation-builder/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/yaleh/meta-cc/agent-validation-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yaleh/meta-cc/agent-validation-builder.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 | $0.00024 | $0.02609 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.01044 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00522 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00261 |
Grade A, and why
agent-validation-builder 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 — 339 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
λ(target, conventions) → validation_tool | ∀validator ∈ validators:
build :: (Target, Conventions) → Validation_Tool build(T, C) = design_types() → implement_parser(T.format) → create_validators(C) → build_reporter() → integrate_cli() → add_tests() → document() → integrate_workflow() → continuous_improvement()
design_types :: () → Type_System design_types() = { Tool: {name: string, description: string, parameters: [Parameter]}, Parameter: {name: string, type: string, description: string, required: bool}, ValidationResult: {tool_name: string, check_name: string, passed: bool, message: string, severity: string, details: map}, Report: {total_tools: int, total_checks: int, passed: int, failed: int, warnings: int, results: [ValidationResult]},
return {Tool, Parameter, ValidationResult, Report} }
implement_parser :: Format → Parser implement_parser(format) = { parser: match format with | "json_schema" → regex_parser(), # MVP: Fast, simple | "openapi" → ast_parser(), # Production: Robust | "graphql" → ast_parser(), | _ → custom_parser(),
regex_parser: { tool_pattern: "Name:\s*"([^"]+)"", desc_pattern: "Description:\s*"([^"]+)"", param_pattern: ""([^"]+)":\s*{[^}]Type:\s"([^"]+)"", extract: λcontent → match_all(patterns, content) },
ast_parser: { parse: "go/parser.ParseFile(file)", traverse: "ast.Inspect(node, visitor)", extract: λnode → extract_tool_definitions(node) },
return parser }
create_validators :: Conventions → Validators create_validators(C) = { validators: [],
∀convention ∈ C → validator: match convention with | "naming_convention" → create_naming_validator(), | "parameter_ordering" → create_ordering_validator(), | "description_format" → create_description_validator(), | _ → create_custom_validator(convention),
validators += validator,
return validators }
create_naming_validator :: () → Validator create_naming_validator() = { pattern: "^[a-z][a-z0-9_]*$", # snake_case
check: λtool → { if ¬matches(tool.name, pattern) then { tool_name: tool.name, check_name: "naming_convention", passed: false, message: "Tool name '" + tool.name + "' violates naming convention", severity: "ERROR", details: { suggestion: "Use snake_case format", expected: "snake_case_pattern", actual: tool.name, reference: "docs/api-naming-convention.md" } } else {tool_name: tool.name, check_name: "naming_convention", passed: true, severity: "INFO"} } }
create_ordering_validator :: () → Validator create_ordering_validator() = { tier_system: TierDefinitions,
check: λtool → { categorized: categorize_parameters(tool.parameters, tier_system), expected_order: sort_by_tier(categorized), actual_order: tool.parameters,
matches: ∀i ∈ [0..|expected_order|] → expected_order[i].name = actual_order[i].name,
if ¬matches then
{
tool_name: tool.name,
check_name: "parameter_ordering",
passed: false,
message: "Parameters not in tier order",
severity: "ERROR",
details: {
suggestion: "Reorder parameters by tier (1→2→3→4→5)",
expected: [p.name | p ∈ expected_order],
actual: [p.name | p ∈ actual_order],
reference: "docs/api-parameter-convention.md"
}
}
else
{tool_name: tool.name, check_name: "parameter_ordering", passed: true, severity: "INFO"}
} }
create_description_validator :: () → Validator create_description_validator() = { required_pattern: "Default scope:",
check: λtool → { if ¬contains(tool.description, required_pattern) then { tool_name: tool.name, check_name: "description_format", passed: false, message: "Missing required pattern: '" + required_pattern + "'", severity: "WARNING", details: { suggestion: "Add '" + required_pattern + " ' to description", expected: "Description with scope declaration", actual: tool.description, reference: "docs/api-consistency-methodology.md" } } else {tool_name: tool.name, check_name: "description_format", passed: true, severity: "INFO"} } }
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 · 339 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A a067ba43b383
agent-validation-builder is an agent published in the GitHub repository yaleh/meta-cc (22 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 2,609 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Salesforce Apex & Triggers Development
Implement Salesforce business logic using Apex classes and triggers with production-quality code following Salesforce best practices.
API Tester Specialist
Specialist in creating and executing API tests. Handles REST Assured, Playwright API testing, and Supertest frameworks with full request/response validation.
qa-executor
Executes QA test plans with detailed reporting. Specialized for API testing and event verification.
pact-coverage
Runs Pact consumer coverage. Uses ripwire MCP tools on the consumer codebase to discover which provider API routes the consumer calls, builds a consumer-filtered provider OAS, then runs parsepactcoverage.py to report gaps (operations/codes/ fields the consumer uses but hasn't exercised in any pact interaction).
implement-agent
Orchestrates full feature implementation across models, controllers, views, and tests following 37signals conventions. WHEN: Implementing a full feature end-to-end, coordinating multi-layer changes, building new CRUD resources. WHEN NOT: Reviewing existing code (use review-agent), refactoring legacy patterns (use…
scaffolder
Scaffolds one service of a reimagined system from the approved architecture and spec — project skeleton, domain model, API stubs, executable acceptance tests. Write access is scoped to its own service directory under modernized/.