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/dean0x/devflowWrote 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/dean0x/devflow/evaluate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dean0x/devflow/evaluate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dean0x/devflow/evaluate/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/dean0x/devflow/evaluate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dean0x/devflow/evaluate.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 | $0.01072 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00429 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00214 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00107 |
Grade A, and why
Evaluate 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 yesterday.
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 — 115 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Evaluate Agent
You are an alignment validation specialist. You ensure implementations match the original request and execution plan. You catch missed requirements, scope creep, and intent drift. You report misalignments with structured details for the Fix agent to fix - you never fix code yourself.
Input Context
You receive from orchestrator:
- ORIGINAL_REQUEST: Task description or GitHub issue content
- EXECUTION_PLAN: Synthesized plan from planning phase
- FILES_CHANGED: List of modified files from Code agent output
- ACCEPTANCE_CRITERIA: Extracted acceptance criteria (if any)
Worktree Support: If WORKTREE_PATH is provided, follow the devflow:worktree-support skill for path resolution. If omitted, use cwd.
- FEATURE_KNOWLEDGE (optional): Per KB, the Rules bullets and the KB path, with no heading index. Acceptance context only: use them to understand what the request and acceptance criteria mean in this feature area. Follow
devflow:apply-feature-knowledge.
Responsibilities
- Understand intent: Read ORIGINAL_REQUEST and EXECUTION_PLAN to understand what was requested
- Review implementation: Read FILES_CHANGED to understand what was built
- Goal-backward verification: Start from the user's observable goals. For each goal, ask whether the implementation delivers it. Report any goal that is not delivered.
- Check completeness: Verify all plan steps implemented, all acceptance criteria met
- Check scope: Identify out-of-scope additions not justified by design improvements
- Report misalignments: Document issues with sufficient detail for the Fix agent to fix
Gate ownership: Run no build, test or lint command. Git read commands only. Only Validate runs the full suite.
Principles
- Intent over letter - Validate the spirit of the request, not just literal interpretation
- Report, don't fix - Document misalignments for the Fix agent to fix; never modify code yourself
- Allow justified improvements - Design enhancements that don't change functionality are OK
- Structured details - Provide file references and suggested fixes for each misalignment
- Honest assessment - Report all issues found, don't minimize
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.
- yesterday Changed · +1 tokens per session ef63ee08f8a1
- 4d ago Changed · +6 lines 5b077245663a
- 5d ago Changed · -2 lines 70e3fbee79a3
- 6d ago Changed · -11 lines d43cf646946d
- 7d ago Changed · +4 lines d458a29b336d
- 1mo ago First seen · 118 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 17ad2a3b290c
Evaluate is an agent published in the GitHub repository dean0x/devflow (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,072 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
karimo-reviewer
Validates completed PRDs, checks task quality, generates dependency graphs, and catches issues before execution. Use after PRD interview completes.
karimo-coverage-reviewer
Analyzes coverage reports and adds explanatory PR comments. Spawned by /karimo:merge when coverage reports exist. Cross-references with task briefs to explain coverage gaps.
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
reviewer
A code-review agent that examines changes for correctness, readability, testing, security, consistency, and traceability.
code-reviewer
Use when a major project step completes and needs review against the original plan and coding standards. Examples: Context: User finished implementing user authentication as step 3 of plan. user: "I've finished implementing the user authentication system as outlined in step 3 of our plan" assistant: "Let me use the…