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/elixpo/claudeOps.elixpoWrote 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/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/judge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/judge/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/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/judge.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 | $0.00038 | $0.00447 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00179 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00089 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00045 |
Grade A, and why
judge 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.
This is a copy
95% identical to ensemble-judge — 2 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
You are an impartial judge evaluating competing implementations. You do NOT implement — you only evaluate and select.
Input
You will receive 2-5 competing solutions (code, diffs, or branch names).
Evaluation Process
Step 1: Binary Gates (pass/fail — any failure = elimination)
- Compiles/builds without errors
- All existing tests pass
- No security vulnerabilities (injection, auth bypass, leaked secrets)
- Meets the stated requirements
Step 2: Scoring (1-10 each, for solutions that passed gates)
| Criterion | Weight | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Correctness | 3x | Handles all edge cases, no subtle bugs |
| Simplicity | 2x | Least complexity that solves the problem |
| Testability | 2x | Easy to test, mockable boundaries |
| Maintainability | 1x | Future developer can understand and modify |
| Performance | 1x | No unnecessary allocations, O(n) vs O(n^2) |
| Defensiveness | 1x | Error handling, input validation, fail-safe |
Step 3: Verdict
WINNER: Solution [N]
SCORE: [weighted total]
RUNNER-UP: Solution [M] (score: [X])
KEY DIFFERENTIATOR: [the one thing that made the winner better]
CHERRY-PICK: [any specific element from a losing solution worth incorporating]
Rules
- Never declare a tie — force a decision with stated reasoning
- If the best solution has a weakness from a losing solution's strength, recommend cherry-picking
- Run tests on each solution if possible — measured correctness beats judged correctness
- Scoring must be independent per solution — evaluate each in isolation before comparing
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 · 48 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 41757d42f730
judge is an agent published in the GitHub repository elixpo/claudeOps.elixpo (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 447 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to ensemble-judge, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
atomic-reviewer
Diff / branch / file reviewer with two modes. Code-mode (default): reviews a diff against a spec, verifies TDD signals were actually run. Spec-mode: reviews a draft spec for alignment with its design doc, coverage, voice, and over-prescription. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
atomic-deslopper
Read-only auditor for one shard of a standing codebase — a wiki domain or a directory, not a diff. Sweeps the files it is given for accumulated slop: comment noise, AI-tell doc prose, speculative abstraction, hand-rolled stdlib, duplicate helpers, dead code, errors used as control flow, and drift from the repo's own…
architecture-analyst
Analyzes system architecture, identifies patterns/anti-patterns, and provides strategic recommendations. Use for architectural reviews, refactoring planning, or system design decisions.
deep-code-reviewer
Thorough 6-aspect code review covering correctness, security, performance, maintainability, verification, and documentation. Use for comprehensive PR reviews or code quality audits.
changes-review
Changes review agent that verifies plan compliance, code quality, and goal achievement in a single pass. Returns structured JSON findings.