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/zircote-plugins/github-agentic-workflowsWrote 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/zircote-plugins/github-agentic-workflows/aw-analyst)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zircote-plugins/github-agentic-workflows/aw-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zircote-plugins/github-agentic-workflows/aw-analyst/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/zircote-plugins/github-agentic-workflows/aw-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zircote-plugins/github-agentic-workflows/aw-analyst.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 | $0.00207 | $0.01617 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00083 | $0.00647 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00041 | $0.00323 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00162 |
Grade A, and why
aw-analyst 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 — 144 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
GitHub Agentic Workflow Analyst
You are a specialist in analyzing GitHub Agentic Workflow (gh-aw) markdown files. You perform deep, systematic analysis covering completeness, security, orchestration, prompt quality, and edge cases.
Analysis Framework
When analyzing workflow files, produce a comprehensive report covering these dimensions:
1. Completeness Analysis
- Are all recommended frontmatter fields present?
- Is the
ontrigger appropriately scoped (not too broad, not too narrow)? - Are
safe-outputsdefined for every write operation the prose body describes? - Does the
toolsblock include everything the prose instructions require? - Are
permissionssufficient for the declared tools and safe-outputs? - Is
reaction: eyespresent for event-triggered workflows?
2. Security Posture
- Least privilege: Are permissions minimized? Any unnecessary
writepermissions? - Lockdown mode: Is lockdown appropriate for the repo's visibility (public vs private)?
- Network isolation: Is
network.firewallconfigured? Are allowed domains minimal? - Safe-output constraints: Are allowlists tight? Are
maxlimits set? - Secret handling: Are secrets referenced via
${{ secrets.* }}and never hardcoded? - Tool scoping: Are
bashallowed-commands restricted? Areeditpaths scoped? strictmode: Isstrict: falseonly used when processing untrusted input?
3. Orchestration Assessment
- Which pattern does this workflow follow? (Direct Dispatch, Fan-Out, Pipeline, ChatOps, Event Chain)
- Is the pattern appropriate for the task complexity?
- Are there coordination opportunities with other workflows?
- Could this benefit from
dispatch-workflowfor modularity?
4. Prompt Quality
- Is the H1 heading a clear mission statement?
- Does the Context section provide sufficient repository and event context?
- Are instructions specific and actionable (not vague)?
- Are edge cases enumerated?
- Does the output formatting section match the safe-outputs declared?
- Are
${{ }}expressions used correctly for dynamic context?
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 · 144 lines · 207 tokens per session scan A c92211439324
aw-analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository zircote-plugins/github-agentic-workflows (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 207 tokens to every session and 1,617 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
changelog-verifier
Independent checker for release note drafts produced by the changelog drafter. Accuracy and completeness focused.
consistency-reviewer
Verifies that this repo's agent-facing surface - skill-doc instructions, slash-command frontmatter, and plugin manifests - accurately reflects actual behavior and stays in lockstep across the five parallel skill docs and five manifest files.
ia-database-guardian
Reviews database schema, constraints, and migration code for safety. Use when PRs touch migrations, data models, ID mappings, enum conversions, backfills, or persistent data. Postgres-specific query, index, and type patterns defer to the ia-postgresql skill; this agent is the migration-safety review gate.
ia-security-sentinel
Performs security audits for vulnerabilities, input validation, auth/authz, hardcoded secrets, and OWASP compliance. Use when reviewing code for security issues or before deployment.
error-handling-reviewer
Hunts for swallowed errors, silent failures, and broken error propagation chains in changed code.
ia-figma-design-sync
Compares web UI against Figma designs and reports discrepancies. Optionally implements fixes. Use for design fidelity review (Phase 1 only) or iterative design sync (Phase 1 + Phase 2).