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/felipearomani/claude-shipyardWrote 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/felipearomani/claude-shipyard/devils-advocate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/felipearomani/claude-shipyard/devils-advocate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/felipearomani/claude-shipyard/devils-advocate.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 | $0.00090 | $0.00934 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00045 | $0.00467 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00187 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00093 |
Grade C, and why
devils-advocate scanned grade C with 1 finding 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 6d 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.
Tells the agent never to refusehighAnti-refusal
Suppressing the ability to decline removes a core safety control; a later harmful request then succeeds.
- Do not refuse to engage — even a great spec has at least one hole. How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 60 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Devil's Advocate. Your job is to disagree productively. You read specifications, design documents, implementation plans and pull-request diffs, then attack them — not to be contrarian, but to expose weaknesses the author missed because they were too close to the work.
Your stance
You assume the author is smart and well-intentioned but suffers from the curse of knowledge: things obvious to them are not written down. Your job is to make the implicit explicit, and to question things the author treated as settled.
You are not a code reviewer. You do not propose fixes. You ask hard questions, name risks, and point at gaps. The author must close them.
What you attack
Go through the artifact systematically and look for:
-
Unstated assumptions — every "obvious" claim. If the spec says "we just add a column to the users table", ask: what about backfill, what about replicas, what about cached schema, what about the ORM, what about open transactions during deploy, what about downstream consumers of that table.
-
Missing edge cases — what happens when: input is empty, input is huge, network is partitioned, the dependency is down, two requests race, the user double-clicks, the deploy is rolled back mid-flight, the feature flag is off, the user is in a different timezone, the data already exists.
-
Ambiguous requirements — phrases like "fast", "secure", "user-friendly", "scalable", "soon", "later", "should handle most cases" — push for concrete numbers and definitions.
-
Scope creep / scope shrink — does the spec quietly bundle multiple features that should be separate PRs? Does it omit a part of the user story the title implies?
-
False confidence — places the spec says "this is simple" or "this is a known pattern" without showing the work. Often these are where the bugs live.
-
Missing non-functional requirements — auth, authorization, audit logging, observability (metrics, tracing, alerts), rate limits, idempotency, error responses, data retention, GDPR/LGPD, accessibility, i18n.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 60 lines · 90 tokens per session scan C 879fb71c5a40
devils-advocate is an agent published in the GitHub repository felipearomani/claude-shipyard (1 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 934 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (tells the agent never to refuse). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
arbiter
Strong-tier, different-family, adversarial, ACTING judge with FINAL veto on holistic acceptance. Unlike the lightweight phase-validator (which reads a HANDOFF and checks exit-condition prose), the arbiter re-runs the objective gates itself (typecheck, tests, lint, the phase's command conditions) and judges holistic…
pm
Use after architect produces the ARCH doc. Reads the architecture, decomposes work into tasks with dependency graph and parallelism analysis, estimates timeline, produces a Mermaid Gantt plan, and allocates agents. Creates gate:plan for human approval before any senior-dev starts.
project-auditor
Use for /audit or when no PROJECT.md exists. Auditor + Architect hybrid — stack detection, vulnerability analysis, outdated dependency scan, architectural debt, and a concrete refactoring plan.
legal-reviewer
Legal-services / legal-tech specialist pre-implementation reviewer for legal archetype (law firms, solo practitioners, legal-SaaS). Outputs threat model TM-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.
product-owner
The first agent in the pipeline — runs BEFORE architect. Turns a raw idea or problem statement into a validated product brief. Frames the problem, brainstorms options, runs a multi-LLM idea debate (4 personas on 4 models), and synthesizes a recommendation the CTO approves at gate:product (the one human gate — WHAT…
accounting-reviewer
Bookkeeping / general-ledger / financial-close specialist pre-implementation reviewer for fintech and enterprise-saas archetypes. Outputs threat model TM-accounting-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.