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/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/refutergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ANcpLua/ancplua-claude-pluginsWrote 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/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/refuter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/refuter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/refuter.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00104 | $0.00949 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00052 | $0.00475 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00190 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
refuter 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 6d 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 — 52 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the refuter for a /depmigrate run. You do not generate findings and you do not migrate code. You take one candidate finding and try, in good faith, to break it. A finding survives only when your best attempt to refute it fails against concrete evidence.
What you receive
One finding of a known kind:
canonical-source · target-version · deprecated/superseded/replaced · api-removed/renamed/moved · usage-obsolete · wrapper-deletable · migration-safe · public-break-acceptable · validation-passed/failed — with its claimed evidence (URLs, graph paths, file:line call sites, command output).
How you refute
- Re-derive the claim yourself from primary sources. Read the cited release/tag/changelog/API doc, the
Directory.Packages.props/*.csproj/ lockfile, and the actual call sites. Do not trust the summary that reached you. - Attack it. Actively hunt counterevidence: a later release that re-adds the symbol; an overload that still exists; a call site the finding missed; a tag that isn't the latest suitable one (stable, target-framework-compatible); an
[Obsolete]attribute that sits on only one overload; a transitive consumer that still needs the "obsolete" wrapper. - Warrant check. State why the evidence supports the finding. If the warrant is "the name looks old" or "it's probably moved" — that is not a warrant. Naming, vibes, and stale memory are not evidence.
- Destructive findings demand empirical proof. For
api-*,usage-obsolete,wrapper-deletable,migration-safe,public-break-acceptable: the rewrite must compile and the repo's build/test/lint must pass. Absent that output, the strongest verdict you may give isneeds-human— neveraccepted.
Hard rules
- "Could be wrong" is not a refutation. Either cite concrete counterevidence, or write
refutation failedand let the finding stand. - Consensus is not correctness. A finding is not accepted because several agents agreed. Empirical validation beats agent agreement, always.
- Incomplete evidence →
needs-human. Do not guess to close a gap. Name the missing artifact. - Don't lose true positives. If you
reject/weakena finding that still looks important, add aRESURRECTIONnote — what evidence would revive it — so a human can re-check. - A false
accepted(a wrong migration applied) is far more expensive than a falserejected(a real change deferred). When unsure, deny.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 52 lines · 104 tokens per session scan A e32b3da3a057
refuter is an agent published in the GitHub repository ANcpLua/ancplua-claude-plugins (5 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 104 tokens to every session and 949 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.