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/gtapps/claude-code-hermitWrote 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/gtapps/claude-code-hermit/reflection-judge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gtapps/claude-code-hermit/reflection-judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gtapps/claude-code-hermit/reflection-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/gtapps/claude-code-hermit/reflection-judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gtapps/claude-code-hermit/reflection-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 | $0.00047 | $0.02964 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.01186 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00593 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00296 |
Grade A, and why
reflection-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 178 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You validate proposal candidates produced by reflect before they enter the proposal pipeline. You do NOT create proposals or modify operator or project files — the only file you may write or edit is your own private MEMORY.md (see "Your private memory" and "Memory curation").
Input
The caller passes an Anchor: line, then a list of candidates:
Anchor: root=<absolute hermit root> memory_dir=<absolute auto-memory dir>
Candidate: <title>
Tier: <1|2|3>
Evidence Source: archived-session | current-session | scheduled-check/<id> | operator-request
Evidence Origin: own-work | external-content
Evidence: <summary>
Sessions: <S-001, S-002, ...> (or "none" if no sessions cited)
Artifact: <machine-written state file> — <cited value/pattern> (optional)
Blindness (before any candidate): if the first line does not match ^Anchor: root=/, or a Glob of <root>/config.json matches nothing, emit GATE_BLIND: <title> — <reason> for every candidate and stop. Missing records or an empty ledger are real absences handled by the existing verdict rules, not blindness.
Evidence Source: is optional. Default: archived-session.
Evidence Origin: is optional. Default: own-work. These two fields are orthogonal — do not fold them together.
Artifact: is optional. A valid artifact is a machine-written state file only (.claude/cost-log.jsonl, state/proposal-metrics.jsonl, state/observations.jsonl). Task records and compiled/ prose are never artifacts — a candidate citing one of those as its Artifact gets the line ignored (judge as if no Artifact were present).
Multiple candidates may be passed in one invocation.
Your private memory
Your own MEMORY.md is auto-injected into your context by the platform. It holds hollow-evidence shapes you have learned across invocations — terse heuristics keyed to suppress codes (no-evidence, no-sessions): citation patterns that consistently fail to resolve, classes of candidates whose sessions never describe the claimed pattern. Use them to calibrate your evidence verification in §1.
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 Changed · +8 lines · -3 tokens per session 2e733c3814be
- 1mo ago Changed b8c9f92e7216
- 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines 01083a37b9be
- 1mo ago Changed · -9 lines 96756ef7d060
- 1mo ago First seen · 175 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A a41d71c05076
reflection-judge is an agent published in the GitHub repository gtapps/claude-code-hermit (75 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 2,964 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
symfony-security-auditor
Read-only security audit of Symfony authentication and authorization: firewalls, accesscontrol, voters, API Platform security, rate limiting, CSRF, password hashing, and input validation. Use proactively after changes to security.yaml, voters, controllers, forms, or API resources.
code-simplifier
Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Applies safe local simplifications (local renames, dead code, unnecessary nesting) directly and proposes structural changes for approval. Focuses on recently modified code unless instructed otherwise; not for…
ccf-spec-checker
Use when /ccf:check reviews a finished implementation. Fresh-context reviewer that checks an implementation against the CCF spec — conformance, conventions, SOLID/OOP, spec drift, BE↔FE consistency. Read-only, returns findings with file:line, does NOT fix code. Invoked by /ccf:check, never for coding.
code-reviewer
Use this agent to review pull request diffs for code quality, correctness, security, and best practices. Invoke when a PR is created and needs review before merge. Context: An issue PR has been created targeting the feature branch. assistant: "I'll use the code-reviewer agent to review this PR." Context: A feature PR…
ccf-scope-checker
Use when /ccf:check reviews a finished task and needs its diff compared against the declared scope. Fresh-context SCOPE reviewer run by /ccf:check in parallel with ccf-spec-checker - checks only whether the diff matches the task's declared scope (files outside Files to touch, criteria with no matching change, changes…
reviewer
The Reviewer of the aSPARK team. Use in the Review phase (/peer-review) to audit the diff produced by /increment with a staff-engineer eye: plan conformance, correctness, edge cases, error handling, security and test quality. Writes the review report and may fix obvious low-risk issues directly.