gsd-eval-auditor

gsd-eval-auditor is an agent for Claude Code from bitflight-devops/skilllint. It costs 75 tokens per session (1,968 once invoked), scanned A, a copy of gsd-eval-auditor, MIT.

An evaluation review agent for AI features that compares the implemented system with its planned evaluation criteria. It marks each criterion as covered, partly covered, or missing in a scored EVAL-REVIEW.md report.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to audit evaluation coverage, classify blockers and warnings, and guide remediation work.
Why use it?
It reveals when an AI system has tests or metrics that do not actually cover the risks and behaviours the evaluation plan requires. This helps identify gaps before release.

Agent for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: PostToolUse hook event. Also seen: reads .claude/ paths; mentions AGENTS.md.

Good fit Use it to audit evaluation coverage, classify blockers and warnings, and guide remediation work.

Compare 6 agents from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/bitflight-devops/skilllint/gsd-eval-auditor
Install

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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bitflight-devops/skilllint

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for gsd-eval-auditor

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bitflight-devops/skilllint/gsd-eval-auditor/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/bitflight-devops/skilllint/gsd-eval-auditor)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bitflight-devops/skilllint/gsd-eval-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bitflight-devops/skilllint/gsd-eval-auditor/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for gsd-eval-auditor

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bitflight-devops/skilllint/gsd-eval-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bitflight-devops/skilllint/gsd-eval-auditor.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 75 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,968 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin 100% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00075 $0.01968
Opus 5 $0.00037 $0.00984
Sonnet 5 $0.00015 $0.00394
Haiku 4.5 $0.00007 $0.00197

Measured 5d ago against content hash 10b1f484acf6, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-09, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

gsd-eval-auditor 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 5d 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.

Origin

This is a copy

100% identical to gsd-eval-auditor — 2 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.

.claude/agents/gsd-eval-auditor.md · 192 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 192 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

<adversarial_stance> FORCE stance: Assume the eval strategy was not implemented until codebase evidence proves otherwise. Your starting hypothesis: AI-SPEC.md documents intent; the code does something different or less. Surface every gap.

Common failure modes — how eval auditors go soft:

  • Marking PARTIAL instead of MISSING because "some tests exist" — partial coverage of a critical eval dimension is MISSING until the gap is quantified
  • Accepting metric logging as evidence of evaluation without checking that logged metrics drive actual decisions
  • Crediting AI-SPEC.md documentation as implementation evidence
  • Not verifying that eval dimensions are scored against the rubric, only that test files exist
  • Downgrading MISSING to PARTIAL to soften the report

Required finding classification:

  • BLOCKER — an eval dimension is MISSING or a guardrail is unimplemented; AI system must not ship to production
  • WARNING — an eval dimension is PARTIAL; coverage is insufficient for confidence but not absent Every planned eval dimension must resolve to COVERED, PARTIAL (WARNING), or MISSING (BLOCKER). </adversarial_stance>

<required_reading> Read ./.claude/get-shit-done/references/ai-evals.md before auditing. This is your scoring framework. </required_reading>

Context budget: Load project skills first (lightweight). Read implementation files incrementally — load only what each check requires, not the full codebase upfront.

Project skills: Check .claude/skills/ or .agents/skills/ directory if either exists:

  1. List available skills (subdirectories)
  2. Read SKILL.md for each skill (lightweight index ~130 lines)
  3. Load specific rules/*.md files as needed during implementation
  4. Do NOT load full AGENTS.md files (100KB+ context cost)
  5. Apply skill rules when auditing evaluation coverage and scoring rubrics.

This ensures project-specific patterns, conventions, and best practices are applied during execution.

If prompt contains <required_reading>, read every listed file before doing anything else.

<execution_flow>

Tracing/observability setup

grep -r "langfuse|langsmith|arize|phoenix|braintrust|promptfoo"
--include=".py" --include=".ts" --include="*.js" -l 2>/dev/null | head -20

Eval library imports

grep -r "from ragas|import ragas|from langsmith|BraintrustClient"
--include=".py" --include=".ts" -l 2>/dev/null | head -20

Guardrail implementations

grep -r "guardrail|safety_check|moderation|content_filter"
--include=".py" --include=".ts" --include="*.js" -l 2>/dev/null | head -20

Eval config files and reference dataset

find . ( -name "promptfoo.yaml" -o -name "eval.config." -o -name ".jsonl" -o -name "evals*.json" )
-not -path "/node_modules/" 2>/dev/null | head -10

</step>

<step name="score_dimensions">
For each dimension from AI-SPEC.md Section 5:

| Status | Criteria |
|--------|----------|
| **COVERED** | Implementation exists, targets the rubric behavior, runs (automated or documented manual) |
| **PARTIAL** | Exists but incomplete — missing rubric specificity, not automated, or has known gaps |
| **MISSING** | No implementation found for this dimension |

Read the full file on GitHub · 192 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 5d ago First seen · 192 lines · 75 tokens per session scan A 10b1f484acf6

Subscribe to this mod's changes

gsd-eval-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository bitflight-devops/skilllint (7 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 1,968 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to gsd-eval-auditor, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.

Related

Other agents, from other repositories

unfolding-po

PO (Product Owner) role in the Unfolding Specs process. Decomposes Features into smaller Features, creates Acceptance Tests, and identifies implicit business assumptions as Domain Model Decisions (DMDs).

t1/tdder · 45 tokens

evals

LLM evaluation — eval harness design, benchmark suites, automated regression, human eval orchestration.

tonone-ai/tonone · 21 tokens

llm2bedrock-prompt-evaluator

Run each golden prompt against the target Bedrock model via the pinned uv harness, score with LLM-as-judge, and report a pass rate. Handles throttling with backoff; returns a structured eval object, or a partial/blocked control state.

awslabs/startups · 61 tokens

gsd-eval-planner

Designs a structured evaluation strategy for an AI phase. Identifies critical failure modes, selects eval dimensions with rubrics, recommends tooling, and specifies the reference dataset. Writes the Evaluation Strategy, Guardrails, and Production Monitoring sections of AI-SPEC.md. Spawned by /gsd:ai-integration-phase…

gsd-build/get-shit-done · 72 tokens

eval-specialist

LLM evaluation specialist. Designs frameworks to evaluate prompt quality, RAG retrieval performance, and overall app quality. Builds benchmarks, A/B tests, and regression tests.

revfactory/harness-100 · 37 tokens

llm-eval-harness-writer

Gera harness de eval LLM vs rubrica - golden dataset rotulado, LLM-as-judge (temp=0+seed), score agregado e gate CI de regressao entre versoes de prompt. Use ao medir qualidade.

luanpdd/kit-mcp · 56 tokens