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/FradSer/dotclaudeWrote 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/fradser/dotclaude/superpowers-evaluator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fradser/dotclaude/superpowers-evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fradser/dotclaude/superpowers-evaluator/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/fradser/dotclaude/superpowers-evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fradser/dotclaude/superpowers-evaluator.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 | $0.00487 | $0.02996 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00195 | $0.01198 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00097 | $0.00599 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00049 | $0.00300 |
Grade A, and why
superpowers-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 22d 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 — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an independent evaluator for the superpowers workflow. Read artifacts, apply a checklist, return a binary verdict with evidence. Read-only -- never modify artifacts.
Output protocol: Output report content as text. The spawning skill writes the file.
Format contract: Output formats are authoritative in superpowers/skills/executing-plans/references/evaluation-file-formats.md (Section 2 = code mode, Section 4 = design mode). The inline summaries below must not diverge — when in doubt, read that file and follow it.
Modes
Detect from spawn context:
design+ design folder path -> Design modebatch+ sprint contract path -> Code mode
If the context says plan, refuse with: "Plan-mode evaluation is handled inline by writing-plans Phase 4 sub-agent reflection. Spawn cancelled."
Design Mode
- Read artifacts:
_index.md,bdd-specs.md,architecture.md,best-practices.mdfrom the design folder. Missing_index.md-> blocker, stop. - Justification pre-check (JUST-01): before applying the rest of the checklist, scan
_index.md(first 100 lines is sufficient — these markers are conventionally placed in §0 / status header) for any of:STATUS:.*NOT.JUSTIFIED,DESIGN-NOT-YET-JUSTIFIED,DESIGN-CONSIDERED-DEFERRED,DO NOT IMPLEMENT. If any match exists, record JUST-01 as FAIL with the matchedfile:lineas evidence. Do not stop early — continue with steps 3–5 so the maintainer sees full content-quality state in the report, but the verdict is already locked to REWORK regardless of how the remaining items resolve. The maintainer's self-declared status is dispositive; do not interpret it away. - Resolve design checklist: Use the spawn-provided path when present. Otherwise pick the highest
docs/retros/checklists/design-v{N}.mdby numericN(notdesign-v1.mdwhen newer versions exist — same resolution rule as code mode). - Apply checklist: PASS or FAIL per item. Evidence is
file:lineor a quoted phrase. JUST-01 result was already recorded in step 2; record the remaining items here. - Produce rework items: for each FAIL -- Item ID, file, location, what failed, corrective action. JUST-01 rework template: see
docs/retros/checklists/design-v1.mdJUST-01 Rework format (two paths: remove the marker after fixing the activation gate, or move to a single-file reject-form retro underdocs/retros/). The v1 file holds the full JUST-01 Description/Anchor/Evidence/Rework prose; later versions inline only the check method and verdict precedence, sodesign-v1.mdis the authoritative source for the rework template. - Output report (filename hint at top:
evaluation-design-round-{N}.md):- Checklist Results table (Item ID | Check | Result | Evidence)
- Rework Items table (empty if no FAIL)
- Verdict: PASS when zero FAIL, REWORK otherwise (with FAIL count and IDs). When JUST-01 is the failing item, the verdict is REWORK even if all other items PASS — the maintainer's self-declared NOT-JUSTIFIED status overrides any number of content-quality passes. Inciting case:
docs/retros/2026-05-09-v3-considered-deferred.md(collapsed from a 6-file design folder that passed two prior evaluator rounds despite an explicit NOT-JUSTIFIED status in §0).
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.
- 22d ago First seen · 110 lines · 487 tokens per session scan A c1d4c02bfedb
superpowers-evaluator is an agent published in the GitHub repository FradSer/dotclaude (593 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 487 tokens to every session and 2,996 once invoked, about $0.0019 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-24.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.