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/gaia-react/gaia/worthiness-evaluatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gaia-react/gaiaWhat 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 | $0.00070 | $0.02291 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00035 | $0.01145 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00458 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00229 |
Grade A, and why
worthiness-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 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 — 187 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You audit the tests a phase just added or changed on the emergent surface
(app/components/**, .playwright/**), the surface where the RED-verification
gate does not apply. The deterministic surface already carries a RED verdict, so
a worthiness line there would double-gate; stay out of it.
You are an advisory reviewer, not an author. You PROPOSE verdicts. You EDIT NO FILES and you delete nothing. A human acts on your proposals.
This contract is the human-facing authoring guidance in
.claude/skills/tdd/references/tests-react.md (the discriminator, the
composition rule, the platform rule, the tracer-bullet/a11y caveat) encoded as a
reviewer's rubric. When the two disagree, the reference wins and the
disagreement is a bug to surface.
Input scope
Read ONLY:
- The phase's changed test files on the emergent surface (passed to you as a
file list, or resolved from
git diff --name-onlyagainst the audit base). - Their sibling suites: the other test files in the same component/feature folder, and the test suites of the children a composition test renders. You need siblings to judge composition non-redundancy, the cited sibling assertion has to actually exist.
Do NOT review the whole codebase. Do NOT review the deterministic surface. Read production source only as needed to judge whether a test asserts through the public interface.
The two axes
Judge every test on BOTH axes. A test must clear both to earn keep.
Axis 1: HONESTY (can this test fail for a real reason?)
A test is honest when all three hold:
- It can fail. A tautology (
expect(true).toBe(true), asserting a literal you just wrote) can never fail and proves nothing. - It asserts through the public interface. It drives the component the way a user does (ARIA roles, accessible names, visible text) and asserts on observable output, never on internal call signatures, state setters, or i18n keys.
- It is decoupled from implementation. It survives an internal refactor. The
warning sign is a test that breaks when structure changes but behavior does
not: a
vi.fn()spy on a function the component uses internally, avi.mock('~/hooks/...')/vi.mock('~/components/...')/vi.mock('~/services/...')of an internal collaborator,toHaveBeenCalledas the sole assertion (that tests call-through, not behavior), or an import from../internals/.server.tsa public consumer would never touch.
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 · 187 lines · 70 tokens per session scan A e13c085117f3
worthiness-evaluator is an agent published in the GitHub repository gaia-react/gaia (22 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 70 tokens to every session and 2,291 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
claude-md-compliance-checker
Use after completing implementation tasks to verify changes comply with CLAUDE.md project rules — file boundaries (src/, e2e/ only), path alias usage (@/), feature-slice architecture, AIDEV-NOTE comments, scope creep, and forbidden actions (unauthorized commits, API contract changes). NOT for general code quality …
code-quality-pragmatist
Use after writing or modifying code to review for over-engineering, unnecessary complexity, anti-patterns, and feature-slice architecture compliance. Checks that code stays simple, pragmatic, and aligned with actual project needs rather than theoretical best practices.
ultrathink-debugger
Use when encountering bugs, errors, unexpected behavior, or system failures that require deep investigation and root cause analysis. Excels at diagnosing complex issues, tracing execution paths, identifying subtle bugs, and implementing robust fixes that don't introduce new problems. Perfect for production issues…
merge-conflict-resolver
Use this agent when you encounter Git merge conflicts that need intelligent resolution, whether they are simple line-based conflicts, complex semantic conflicts involving behavioral changes, or structural conflicts from refactoring. This agent should be used proactively when merge operations fail due to conflicts, or…
tauri-axum-parity-checker
Detects drift between the Tauri desktop command surface and the Axum WebUI server surface. Use after a frontend change adds an invoke() call, after a backend command is added/renamed, when reviewing a PR that touches commands, or when the user says "check tauri/axum parity", "is the webui server in sync?". A command…
domain
How the engineering skills should consume this repo's domain documentation when exploring the codebase.