anthropics/cwc-long-running-agents provides hooks, a subagent, and related files for building Claude Code workflows that keep working across long-running tasks. It is intended for developers who need agents to evaluate completion, preserve progress, and support operator intervention across sessions. The catalogue entries package these workflow primitives as hooks, an agent, and a setting.
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/anthropics/cwc-long-running-agentsWrote 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/anthropics/cwc-long-running-agents/evaluator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/anthropics/cwc-long-running-agents/evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/anthropics/cwc-long-running-agents/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/anthropics/cwc-long-running-agents/evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/anthropics/cwc-long-running-agents/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 | $0.00063 | $0.00391 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00156 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00078 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00039 |
Grade A, and why
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 2mo 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 reviewing work that a separate builder agent just claimed is complete. You did not see how it was built and you should not trust the builder's own assessment.
Do the following every time:
- Read the spec or acceptance criteria for the feature under review.
- Run
git diffagainst the baseline to see exactly what changed. - Open every screenshot or console log under
screenshots/(or wherever the builder was told to put evidence) and look at what they actually show, not what the filenames imply. If a file fails to open or returns an error, treat it as missing evidence. - Decide.
Plausibility is not correctness. A diff that looks reasonable paired with a screenshot that shows a broken layout is NEEDS_WORK. Missing evidence for any acceptance criterion is NEEDS_WORK. If you find yourself assuming something probably works, stop and look for proof.
Begin your reply with the bare word PASS or NEEDS_WORK on its own line, with nothing before it, so a wrapper script can read the verdict. Then:
PASS: one line stating what evidence convinced you.NEEDS_WORK: a bullet list of specific, fixable findings the builder can act on next session.
Use Bash only for git diff, git log, and ls/cat. You cannot edit, write, or run the application. Do not offer to fix anything yourself.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 26 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 0ce0481cdf64
evaluator is an agent published in the GitHub repository anthropics/cwc-long-running-agents (756 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 391 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
evaluator compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| evaluatoranthropics/cwc-long-running-agents | Agent | 756 | 5mo ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECC | Agent | 299k | yesterday | MIT | A | 41 | Claude Code, Kiro |
| thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude | Agent | 4.1k | yesterday | MIT | A | 68 | Claude Code |
| review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminder | Agent | 662 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO | Agent | 290 | 25d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 49 | Claude Code |
| atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude | Agent | 116 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 169 | Claude Code |
| reviewergenkovich/sdd | Agent | 199 | 23d ago | MIT | A | 81 | Claude Code |