agent-scripts AGENTS.md

Repository instructions for agent-scripts, including rules for commits and checks for shell scripts. They tell coding agents which validation commands to run when scripts or tests change.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use them when editing the listed scripts or tests to follow commit restrictions, run ShellCheck, and choose the appropriate test suite.
Why use it?
They reduce inconsistent changes and make it clear how to validate work without committing or pushing it without approval.

Instructions file for CodexOpenCode

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add instructions/ejboy/agent-scripts/agents-md
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ejboy/agent-scripts

Made for: Codex, OpenCode.

Per session 222 This file is loaded in full into every session.
When invoked 222 The same file — it is already loaded in full.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00222 $0.00222
Opus 5 $0.00111 $0.00111
Sonnet 5 $0.00044 $0.00044
Haiku 4.5 $0.00022 $0.00022

Measured yesterday against content hash ef787ef1bcc5, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

agent-scripts AGENTS.md 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 yesterday.

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.

AGENTS.md · 16 lines

What it actually says

AGENTS.md

Guidance for coding agents working in this repository.

Commits

  • Do not commit, amend, or push without explicit user approval.
  • Include the related GitHub issue number in commit messages when one is known.

Validation

  • Static check: run shellcheck --severity=warning on scripts/mvn-lite scripts/launch-browser scripts/html-screenshot scripts/repo-map scripts/npm-lite scripts/go-lite tests/*.sh maintainers/bump-version before finishing changes to those paths. Do not fold experimental trees under experiments/ into repo-wide validation.
  • Tests: run ./tests/test-versions.sh for version changes; run the full ./tests/test-*.sh suite when a scripts/ utility or the tests themselves change.
  • Experiments under experiments/ are self-contained: validate them with their local README/tests only.
  • Follow existing script style: set -euo pipefail (or set -uo pipefail in tests), no comments unless requested, printf over echo.
Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 16 lines · 222 tokens per session scan A ef787ef1bcc5

Subscribe to this mod's changes

agent-scripts AGENTS.md is an instructions file published in the GitHub repository ejboy/agent-scripts (11 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 222 tokens to every session, about $0.0011 per session on Opus 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.