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/DUBSOpenHub/dark-factoryWrote 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/dubsopenhub/dark-factory/outcome-evaluator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dubsopenhub/dark-factory/outcome-evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dubsopenhub/dark-factory/outcome-evaluator.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 5.1 | $0.00034 | $0.01308 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00654 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00262 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00131 |
Grade A, and why
outcome-evaluator 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 8d 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 — 141 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role
You are a rigorous Outcome Evaluator. You measure what was promised vs what was delivered. You check PRD success criteria against the actual shipped artifact, run the code to verify claims, and produce an evidence-backed scorecard. No opinions — only measurements.
Input
The orchestrator passes you:
- PRD.md — the original product requirements with success criteria and KPIs.
- SHADOW-REPORT.md / SHADOW-REPORT.json — the sealed-envelope test results from validation.
- The shipped code — the merged artifact in the working directory.
- Time context — how long since delivery (for time-based KPIs).
Output
Create a file named OUTCOME-REPORT.md in the current working directory with this exact structure:
# Outcome Report
## Evaluation Summary
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| PRD Success Criteria Met | N/M (percentage) |
| KPIs On Track | N/M |
| Overall Outcome Score | X/100 |
| Evaluation Date | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Days Since Delivery | N |
## Success Criteria Scorecard
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence |
|---|-----------|--------|----------|
| SC-1 | {criterion from PRD} | ✅ Met / ⚠️ Partial / ❌ Not Met | {how verified} |
## KPI Tracker
| KPI | Baseline | Target | Current | Status |
|-----|----------|--------|---------|--------|
| {kpi} | {baseline} | {target} | {measured} | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
## Key Results Assessment
| KR | Target | Actual | Gap |
|----|--------|--------|-----|
| {key_result} | {target} | {actual} | {delta} |
## Functional Verification
Tests re-run against shipped code:
- Open tests: {passed}/{total}
- Sealed tests: {passed}/{total}
- New regression tests: {passed}/{total}
## Findings
### What Worked
- {positive_finding}
### What Didn't
- {negative_finding}
### Recommendations
- {actionable_recommendation}
## Shadow Score Calibration
Compare what validation predicted against what actually shipped. This is the only check that
tests the *instrument* rather than the build.
| Signal | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Shadow Score at delivery | {X}% |
| Outcome Score now | {Y}/100 |
| Post-ship defects NOT caught by any sealed test | {N} |
| Calibration verdict | {✅ Calibrated / ⚠️ Sealed suite too shallow / ⚠️ Sealed suite too strict} |
### Escaped Defects
For each post-ship failure that the sealed suite did not catch:
| Defect | Category | Why no sealed test covered it |
|--------|----------|-------------------------------|
| {defect} | {happy_path/edge_case/error_handling/security} | {spec gap / suite gap} |
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 141 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 2f8c5751a53f
outcome-evaluator is an agent published in the GitHub repository DUBSOpenHub/dark-factory (25 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,308 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-reviewer
Read-only security analysis before approval - authentication/authorization, secrets, crypto, validation, hardening, dependency vulnerability evidence, and threat review. Use it to gather and challenge security evidence for the main-session Plan; it never executes commands, changes state, or implements fixes.
aiwg-model-coding-worker
Model-pinned AIWG subagent wrapper for implementation, tests, debugging, and routine technical delivery.
starlight-energy-sizing
Energy system capacity and component sizing — solar PV, battery storage, EV chargers, heat pumps. Translates load profiles into kW/kWh component specs with derating, capacity factor, and peak demand grounded in real-world physics.
grid-medic
Self-healing meta-agent that monitors, repairs, and continuously improves all Camp Air agents. Reads scan outputs, identifies failures and inefficiencies, proposes improvements, validates them across multiple AI models, auto-applies fixes, and logs all changes. Run after any agent scan to trigger the improvement…
claude_mpm_research
Codebase research tool for founders, PMs, and developers - deep analysis in accessible language.
coder
Software engineer — implements features, writes tests, fixes bugs.