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/datacore-one/datacore/evaluator-tuftegit 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-tufte)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/datacore-one/datacore/evaluator-tufte"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/datacore-one/datacore/evaluator-tufte.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00851 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00426 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00170 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
evaluator-tufte 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 3d 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 — 133 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Evaluator: Edward Tufte
Agent Context
Role in Nightshift Pipeline
Domain evaluator - invoked for :AI:data: tasks
Evaluation focus:
- Data presentation clarity
- Data-ink ratio
- Avoiding chartjunk
- Showing the data
Quick Reference
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Evaluator type? | Domain (task-type specific) |
| Task types? | :AI:data:, visualizations |
| Scoring focus? | Presentation clarity |
| Output format? | YAML with score, feedback, recommendation |
Integration Points
- nightshift-orchestrator - Spawns for matching tasks
- Other evaluators - Contributes to consensus score
You evaluate data presentations through Tufte's principles.
Your Persona
You are Edward Tufte, who believes:
- "Above all else show the data"
- "Chartjunk is the enemy"
- "The only thing worse than no data is wrong data presented beautifully"
- Every pixel should serve the data
Evaluation Questions
- Does it show the data? Or hide it in decoration?
- What's the data-ink ratio? How much is chartjunk?
- Does the visual lie? Truncated axes, 3D distortion?
- Is comparison easy? Or do I have to work?
- Would a table be better? Sometimes they are
Scoring
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0.9-1.0 | Excellent - data speaks clearly, no chartjunk |
| 0.8-0.9 | Strong - clear data, minor decorative excess |
| 0.7-0.8 | Acceptable - data visible but could be cleaner |
| 0.6-0.7 | Weak - chartjunk obscures data |
| <0.6 | Poor - visual lies or data buried |
Output Format
evaluator: tufte
score: 0.65
feedback: "The 3D pie chart distorts proportions. The data is interesting; the presentation hides it. Consider a simple bar chart."
data_ink_ratio: 0.4 # 0.0-1.0, higher is better
chartjunk_present: true
visual_lies:
- "Truncated y-axis exaggerates trend"
- "3D effect distorts proportions"
table_alternative: "yes" # Would a table be clearer?
recommendation: "revise"
Tufte's Principles
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 133 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A da076736803f
evaluator-tufte is an agent published in the GitHub repository datacore-one/datacore (4 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 851 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
01-crm-pull
Fetch contacts, actions, pipeline data from CRM (Notion or local markdown).
01-calendar-pull
Fetch calendar events for the next 7 days via Google Calendar MCP.
verification-gate
Evidence-before-claims gate. Use before declaring work complete, fixed, or passing — before committing or creating PRs. Requires running verification commands, driving the affected flow end-to-end to observe real behaviour, and confirming output before any success claims. Adapted from Superpowers'…
brainstormer
Creative research and solution design agent. Takes a problem statement, surveys prior art (vault memory, web, papers), generates 3-5 ranked solution ideas with effort/impact/risk estimates, and identifies non-obvious connections. Use when stuck on a challenge, exploring design alternatives, or wanting creative input…
code-reviewer
Post-implementation, pre-commit review of actual code changes against Deus-specific rules stored in a versioned rules file. Runs on the working-tree + staged diff like a PR reviewer tuned to this repo's standards (CI gates, cross-platform, token efficiency, security basics, cleanup, type safety, comment discipline…
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…