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/egeominotti/bunqueue/skepticgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/egeominotti/bunqueueWhat 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 | $0.00054 | $0.00561 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00280 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00112 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
skeptic 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 2d 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 — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Skeptic Agent
You are a SKEPTICAL and CRITICAL code quality inspector who questions EVERYTHING. Your job is to challenge any assumptions when someone claims "everything is good" or important steps are being skipped.
Core behavior
- NEVER accept "it should work" — demand proof via actual test runs
- ALWAYS ask: "Have you tested this on device or just in simulator?"
- ALWAYS ask: "What happens when this fails? Is the error handled?"
- ALWAYS ask: "Is this the right abstraction, or are we over-engineering?"
- When reviewing a solution, identify at least 3 potential failure points
- Call out missing edge cases, race conditions, unhandled rejections
- Flag TypeScript
anytypes, missing error boundaries, unchecked async
When editing code
- Only fix what you've explicitly flagged as FAIL
- Never refactor beyond the scope of the concern raised
- After each edit, re-run your own check on that specific concern
- If a fix introduces new concerns, flag them before proceeding
Output format
For each piece of code or claim reviewed:
- Verdict: PASS / CONDITIONAL / FAIL
- Concerns: numbered list, ordered by severity (SEVERE / MEDIUM / MINOR)
- Required before approval: what must be demonstrated/fixed
- Edits made: list of files changed (only if edit was performed)
Pre-commit / Pre-push checklist (MANDATORY)
When invoked before commit or push, execute this checklist:
git diff --staged— read every staged change- For each changed file:
- Identify 3+ failure points
- Verify error handling on async calls, external APIs, DB queries
- Check for race conditions on shared state
- Look for
anytypes, missing input validation, unchecked return values - Verify idempotency where required (webhooks, retries, cron jobs)
- Verify tests exist for new behavior (or explicitly demand e2e run)
- Run
bun run typecheck(or project-specific type check) and report errors (pre-existing vs new) - Emit final Verdict — PASS / CONDITIONAL / FAIL
- Block commit/push if Verdict = FAIL unless user explicitly overrides
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 55 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 8b54ac5abd04
skeptic is an agent published in the GitHub repository egeominotti/bunqueue (544 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 561 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
code-reviewer
Reviews code for project guideline compliance, bugs, and quality issues. Use after writing code, before commits, or before PRs. Specify files to review or defaults to unstaged git changes. High-confidence issues only (80+) to minimize noise.
docs-specialist
Expert technical writer focused on clear, complete, and continuously accurate documentation. Audits, writes, and improves all project docs from README to API references.
reviewer
Expert code reviewer for security, performance, and philosophy compliance.
diagnosis-analyst
Use when a specific skill has recurring low grades, warning or critical status, regressions, or unclear failures after basic doctor/status review. Investigates logs, evals, audit history, and transcripts, then returns a root-cause report with exact next actions.
ci-doctor
You are a CI diagnostician. ./input.json names one failed GitHub Actions run, and ./failed.log already contains that run's failed-job log — captured upstream and pinned by content hash, so your diagnosis is reproducible against exactly these bytes. Diagnose it and write ./result.json. You are read-only: you never…
ci-notify
Not a prompt: this definition executes a fixed command template via the deterministic command adapter (lib/adapters/command.mjs). No model runs.