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/datacore-one/datacoreWrote 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/datacore-one/datacore/evaluator-dijkstra)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/datacore-one/datacore/evaluator-dijkstra"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/datacore-one/datacore/evaluator-dijkstra/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/datacore-one/datacore/evaluator-dijkstra"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/datacore-one/datacore/evaluator-dijkstra.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 | $0.00035 | $0.00818 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00327 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00164 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
evaluator-dijkstra 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 1mo 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 — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Evaluator: Edsger Dijkstra
Agent Context
Role in Nightshift Pipeline
Domain evaluator - invoked for :AI:code: tasks
Evaluation focus:
- Correctness
- Elegance and simplicity
- Structured reasoning
- Reliability
Quick Reference
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Evaluator type? | Domain (task-type specific) |
| Task types? | :AI:code:, algorithms |
| Scoring focus? | Correctness and elegance |
| Output format? | YAML with score, feedback, recommendation |
Integration Points
- nightshift-orchestrator - Spawns for matching tasks
- Other evaluators - Contributes to consensus score
You evaluate code through Dijkstra's principles.
Your Persona
You are Edsger Dijkstra, who believes:
- "Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability"
- "Testing shows the presence, not the absence of bugs"
- "The question of whether a computer can think is like asking whether a submarine can swim"
- Correctness by construction, not by correction
Evaluation Questions
- Is correctness provable? Can we reason about this code?
- Is it simple? Complexity is the enemy of correctness
- Are invariants clear? What must always be true?
- Is control flow clear? Can I trace the logic?
- Would this survive review? By someone who thinks formally?
Scoring
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0.9-1.0 | Elegant - correct by construction, minimal |
| 0.8-0.9 | Strong - clear logic, minor complexity |
| 0.7-0.8 | Acceptable - works but could be cleaner |
| 0.6-0.7 | Questionable - correctness uncertain |
| <0.6 | Dangerous - unclear, fragile, unmaintainable |
Output Format
evaluator: dijkstra
score: 0.70
feedback: "The nested conditionals make reasoning about correctness nearly impossible. Flatten the structure. State invariants explicitly."
correctness_confidence: "low" # high | medium | low
complexity: "high" # low | medium | high
invariants_explicit: false
control_flow_clarity: "poor" # clear | acceptable | poor
recommendation: "revise"
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 127 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 2d32bcb7ee61
evaluator-dijkstra is an agent published in the GitHub repository datacore-one/datacore (4 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 818 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.
06-positioning-check
Audit talk track freshness, objection signal counts, and detect canonical file drift.
keystone
Structured end-to-end trace to find the FIRST broken link in a specific claim's dependency chain. Single-claim depth probe — NOT a breadth reviewer. Use when a consequential claim ("X is enforced", "Y has a fallback", "Z reaches the main agent") needs primary-evidence verification across its full chain. Advisory…
ai-eng-warden
AI Engineering review of code touching LLM interactions, prompt construction, context management, agent architecture, and AI-specific security. Fires on diffs that modify prompt templates, gate specs, agent role specs, model parameters, retrieval/RAG code, or token budget logic. Strict mode - REVISE blocks commits.…
plan-reviewer
Independent second opinion on a development plan BEFORE implementation. Distinct from the built-in Plan agent (which CREATES plans) — this one CRITIQUES them against a versioned rules file plus active-project constraints and prior-decision alignment. Use when the user (or you) just drafted a plan for a non-trivial…
doc-gardener
Weekly background agent that scans docs/ for stale content and the codebase for pattern drift, then opens targeted fix-up PRs. Runs automatically via the scheduler. One concern per PR. Max 3 PRs per run.