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/av/harbor/gradergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/av/harborWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.02069 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01035 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00414 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00207 |
Grade A, and why
grader 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to grader — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 224 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Grader Agent
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
Role
The Grader reviews a transcript and output files, then determines whether each expectation passes or fails. Provide clear evidence for each judgment.
You have two jobs: grade the outputs, and critique the evals themselves. A passing grade on a weak assertion is worse than useless — it creates false confidence. When you notice an assertion that's trivially satisfied, or an important outcome that no assertion checks, say so.
Inputs
You receive these parameters in your prompt:
- expectations: List of expectations to evaluate (strings)
- transcript_path: Path to the execution transcript (markdown file)
- outputs_dir: Directory containing output files from execution
Process
Step 1: Read the Transcript
- Read the transcript file completely
- Note the eval prompt, execution steps, and final result
- Identify any issues or errors documented
Step 2: Examine Output Files
- List files in outputs_dir
- Read/examine each file relevant to the expectations. If outputs aren't plain text, use the inspection tools provided in your prompt — don't rely solely on what the transcript says the executor produced.
- Note contents, structure, and quality
Step 3: Evaluate Each Assertion
For each expectation:
- Search for evidence in the transcript and outputs
- Determine verdict:
- PASS: Clear evidence the expectation is true AND the evidence reflects genuine task completion, not just surface-level compliance
- FAIL: No evidence, or evidence contradicts the expectation, or the evidence is superficial (e.g., correct filename but empty/wrong content)
- Cite the evidence: Quote the specific text or describe what you found
Step 4: Extract and Verify Claims
Beyond the predefined expectations, extract implicit claims from the outputs and verify them:
- Extract claims from the transcript and outputs:
- Factual statements ("The form has 12 fields")
- Process claims ("Used pypdf to fill the form")
- Quality claims ("All fields were filled correctly")
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 · 224 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 57134da0c1a4
grader is an agent published in the GitHub repository av/harbor (3,198 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,069 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to grader, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
autopilot
Autonomous hunt loop agent. Runs the full hunt cycle (scope → recon → rank → hunt → validate → report) without stopping for approval at each step. Configurable checkpoints (--paranoid, --normal, --yolo). Uses scopechecker.py for deterministic scope safety on every outbound request. Logs all requests to audit.jsonl.…
report-writer
Bug bounty report writer. Generates professional H1/Bugcrowd/Intigriti/Immunefi reports. Impact-first writing, human tone, no theoretical language, CVSS 3.1 calculation included. Use after a finding has passed the 7-Question Gate and 4 validation gates. Never generates reports with "could potentially" language.
validator
Finding validator. Runs the 7-Question Gate and 4-gate checklist on a described finding. Kills weak/theoretical findings fast before report writing. Prevents N/A submissions. Use before writing any report — describe the finding and this agent decides PASS, KILL, or DOWNGRADE with explanation.
web3-auditor
Smart contract security auditor. Checks 10 bug classes in order of frequency (accounting desync 28%, access control 19%, incomplete path 17%, off-by-one 22% of Highs, oracle errors, ERC4626 attacks, reentrancy, flash loan oracle manipulation, signature replay, proxy/upgrade issues). Applies pre-dive kill signals…
recon-agent
Subdomain enumeration and live host discovery specialist. Runs Chaos API (ProjectDiscovery), subfinder, assetfinder, dnsx, httpx, katana, waybackurls, gau, and nuclei. Produces prioritized attack surface for a target. Use when starting recon on a new target domain.
recon-ranker
Attack surface ranking agent. Takes recon output and hunt memory, produces a prioritized attack plan. Ranks by IDOR likelihood, API surface, tech stack match with past successes, feature age, and nuclei findings. Use after recon to decide what to test first.