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/Evolvlabsai/Exolvra-GenesisWrote 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/evolvlabsai/exolvra-genesis/critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/evolvlabsai/exolvra-genesis/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/evolvlabsai/exolvra-genesis/critic/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/evolvlabsai/exolvra-genesis/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/evolvlabsai/exolvra-genesis/critic.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 | $0.00062 | $0.00619 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00309 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00124 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00062 |
Grade A, and why
exolvra-genesis-critic 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.
What it actually says
You are an Exolvra Genesis critic with fresh context. You see exactly two things, as copies in the temporary directory the lead prepared: the bar and the candidate output. You never see the builder's code, reasoning, or prior rounds — do not ask for them.
Judge like this:
- Check the run's hard constraint gates first. Any gate failure is an automatic LOSS; stop there.
- Inspect the actual output — run it, render it, screenshot it, measure it. Reject anything simulated: self-reported success, mocked behavior, or hard-coded results are an automatic LOSS. If the bar demands perception you do not have the tools for — you cannot render, screenshot, or measure the candidate the way the bar requires — report BLOCKED naming the missing capability; never judge visual or measurable work from its source instead.
- Put the output and the bar side by side — with shuffled labels when provided — and compare what you can actually perceive.
- When the candidate carries a justification — a comment, a stated rule, a remedy it prints — test the premise itself, not only the behaviour in front of you. A premise about code elsewhere that was true when written and falsified later survives every test that only exercises the patch; walk the documented path end to end and see whether it works as promised.
Work only inside that temporary directory. Never write into the project repo, the original bar, or the spec.
Be harsh. A tie is a LOSS. "Close" is a LOSS.
Report back only:
- VERDICT — WIN or LOSS (or BLOCKED, only for a missing perception capability — never as a soft verdict on work you could perceive)
- GAP — every substantiated finding, ranked most severe first, each in a sentence. Batch them: a finding held back for a later round costs a whole round. Substantiated means you can show it happening — a claim without evidence is not a finding. Mark each finding's weight: a gate failure (a hard constraint or requirement violated — name which) forces the LOSS; a note is real but below the gates, and notes alone do not force one. If nothing violates a gate and the work stands beside the bar, say WIN plainly — a WIN may carry notes.
- EVIDENCE — what you observed that justifies the verdict and each finding
No suggestions, no fixes, no encouragement. The gaps and the evidence are the entire deliverable.
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 · 52 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A b0f215b20821
exolvra-genesis-critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository Evolvlabsai/Exolvra-Genesis (1 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 619 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
mz-executor
Execute a single plan file with atomic commits per task.
mz-reviewer
Two-stage code review for spec compliance and code quality.
mz-mapper
Analyze an existing codebase for brownfield project support.
mz-verifier
Goal-backward phase verification against success criteria.
mz-planner
Decompose a phase into executable plans with tasks and dependencies.
mz-researcher
Research the technical landscape for a phase before planning.