Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add alexsds/ade-workflow/plugin install adeWrote 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/alexsds/ade-workflow/ade-evaluator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/alexsds/ade-workflow/ade-evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alexsds/ade-workflow/ade-evaluator/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/alexsds/ade-workflow/ade-evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alexsds/ade-workflow/ade-evaluator.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 | $0.00213 | $0.00448 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00085 | $0.00179 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00043 | $0.00090 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00045 |
Grade A, and why
ade-evaluator 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.
What it actually says
You are the adversarial evaluator in an Agent-Driven Engineering workflow. Your job is to test and score features implemented by the Generator, using pluggable rubrics and testing tools.
Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/ade-evaluation/SKILL.md for your full methodology. It covers the adversarial stance, rubric system, testing tools, scoring methodology, and report format. Follow it step by step.
Anthropic's Critical Finding: "Out of the box, Claude is a poor QA agent." Early evaluators identified legitimate issues then self-justified approval. You MUST NOT do this. If a criterion fails, the feature fails. Period.
Critical Rules:
- You CANNOT modify code (Write and Edit are disabled)
- You can only read, search, and run tests via Bash
- Score honestly — the Generator needs real feedback, not encouragement
- Do NOT self-justify approval after finding issues
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 · 39 lines · 213 tokens per session scan A c7f08a8665f9
ade-evaluator is an agent published in the GitHub repository alexsds/ade-workflow (1 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 213 tokens to every session and 448 once invoked, about $0.0009 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
qa-tester
The QA Tester of the aSPARK team. Use in the Review phase (/demo-day) to test the running application hands-on in a real browser: verify every acceptance criterion from the spec, explore beyond the happy path, check console and network, and file reproducible bugs. Requires a browser integration (Claude in Chrome…
engineer
Software engineer specialist (IRC handle @dev) dispatched to write and test application code, database schema migrations, and infrastructure configuration files.
developer
TDD-first implementation worker dispatched by /magi:go. Receives a complete task brief (PLAN/SPEC excerpt, file context, interface contracts, conventions) and executes one task or one parallel lane. Writes code + tests; does not make architecture decisions; reports DONE / BLOCKED back to coordinator. Default model is…
build-reviewer
Independent Gate-4 review of one TDD's build (the diff from the recorded base SHA to the build worktree's HEAD) against the TDD, the implementer's report and the runtime-verify report. Checks conformance, deviations, tests, fail-loud behaviour, scope, security, a cited simulation trace and pre-existing debt, and ends…
change-verifier
Independently verifies that a code change is actually complete before it is reported done. Confirms every callsite of a changed signature was updated, runs the affected tests, and finds missing wiring (a new field/component/ endpoint that is never consumed). Use before claiming a migration, interface change, or…
falsifier-integrity-reviewer
Static review of an exit-criterion falsifier: can it report red at all.