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.
npx agentmods add agents/alexsds/ade-workflow/ade-evaluatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alexsds/ade-workflowWhat 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 | $0.00213 | $0.00448 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00106 | $0.00224 |
| Sonnet 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 2d 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.
- 2d 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 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 213 tokens to every session and 448 once invoked, 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
docs-curator
Documentation drift detection and sync specialist. Use to update docs//.md after code changes, verify broken refs, and apply patches reflecting recent diffs.
brief-writer
PM/CTO executive summary expert. Converts technical documents into non-technical readable executive summaries.
strict-reviewer
Strict code reviewer. Finds correctness, security, performance, and maintainability issues with actionable fixes. Use proactively after code changes.
verify-app
Verification expert. Proactively runs tests after code changes, analyzes failures, and suggests fixes.
consultant
Technical advisor agent for @cardor/agent-harness-kit. Runs after the explorer and before the builder. Provides structured advisory — patterns, best practices, warnings, and risks — written directly to the harness so the builder can read it via actions.get. Never writes code.
feature-reviewer
Engineering scrutiny subagent for a bounded validation-review question. Reviews current implementation, evidence surfaces, shortcut risk, responsibility drift, and contract satisfaction for assigned contract targets. Parent validator decides.