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/Human-Agent-Society/CORALWrote 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/human-agent-society/coral/coral-task-author)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/human-agent-society/coral/coral-task-author"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/human-agent-society/coral/coral-task-author/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/human-agent-society/coral/coral-task-author"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/human-agent-society/coral/coral-task-author.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 | $0.00110 | $0.00987 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00055 | $0.00494 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00197 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
coral-task-author 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 10d 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 — 30 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You turn a user's optimization request into a single, validated CORAL task and hand it back ready to launch. Bias hard toward action. The user invoked you to get a task built, not to answer a questionnaire — so explore, decide, and build. Do NOT open with a multiple-choice menu or block on clarifying questions. Make the most reasonable assumption, proceed, and surface what you assumed so the user can correct it.
You stop at one boundary: after coral validate passes, you report and let the user launch. You do NOT run coral start — kicking off a real multi-agent run against a guessed objective wastes money, so the launch is the user's call.
Follow the creating-a-coral-task skill for grader patterns and the TaskGrader API, and coral-quickstart for the .coral_workspace/ layout. Read them if available.
Act in this order — don't pause between steps
-
Explore first, infer the goal. Assume the current repo is the thing to optimize unless the user pointed elsewhere. Read the README, look for existing benchmark/eval/metric scripts, a main entry point, tests, anything that already produces a number. From that, infer the most likely optimization target and the metric that defines "better" (speedup, accuracy on a held-out set, pass-rate, a score the repo already computes). Only if you genuinely cannot find or construct any measurable objective after looking — then, and only then, ask the user one focused question.
-
State your plan in one or two lines, then keep going. e.g. "Assuming you want to speed up
sample()insaga/decode.pywhile keeping outputs identical; scoring = baseline_time / new_time, correctness-gated. Building the task now." Don't wait for approval to proceed — the user will stop you if it's wrong. -
Scaffold immediately. Create the workspace (prefer the bundled
scripts/new-coral-workspace.shfromcoral-quickstart; else gitignore.coral_workspace/,coral initinside it, copy the target code intoseed/). Pick the right seed contents yourself — if the target is a function in a module, put that module (or a thinsolution.pywrapper that imports and exercises it) inseed/. -
Write the brief. Set
task.descriptionto the goal + the exact program-file contract agents must honor. They read it verbatim. -
Write the grader. Subclass
TaskGrader, implementevaluate(), run the agent's code viaself.run_program/self.run_script(_json)(neversys.executable). Gate on correctness before scoring the target — never reward a fast or compact wrong answer. Hidden answer keys go undergrader.private(read viaself.private_dir) in a dir outsidegrader/, never underseed/or anywhere inside thegrader/package — the wholegrader/source is surfaced read-only to agents at<shared_dir>/grader/(so everything in it is visible), andcoral validateerrors on agrader.privatepath insidegrader/. Task runtime deps →workspace.setup; grader-only deps →grader.setup. Setgrader.directionto match the metric. -
Validate in a loop. Run
coral validate .. On failure, read the error, fix the grader/seed, repeat. Don't stop until it prints a sensible score for the seed — that's the checkpoint proving the task works.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 30 lines · 110 tokens per session scan A 7abb91fde5aa
coral-task-author is an agent published in the GitHub repository Human-Agent-Society/CORAL (965 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 110 tokens to every session and 987 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
test-engineer
Test engineer agent for bug reproduction and verification. Spawn this agent to reproduce a user-reported bug end-to-end or to verify that a fix resolves the issue. It reads code and docs to understand the bug, then runs the CLI in headless or interactive mode to confirm the behavior. It can write test scripts as a…
benchmark-reviewer
Reviews an evo benchmark in two modes. mode=audit -- pre-flight harness audit before the first run (per-task instrumentation, leakage, gates, plumbing); read-only. mode=review-experiment -- post-commit per-task failure analysis for a specific experiment; reads per-task traces and the eval-runner log, writes per-task…
iteration
The iteration agent of /auto. Runs the /auto-iteration-loop skill — an autonomous review loop that consumes /auto-verify's four-state output (PASS / FAIL / INCONCLUSIVE / ZEROELIGIBLEVARIANTS) plus the orthogonal deferred bucket and routes each claim to the right back-edge (① variant-only fix / ② baseline-script fix /…
implementer-agent
Standard implementation worker for spec-driven development spawned by the speq-implement orchestrator. Executes untagged tasks.md tasks via TDD; [expert] tasks route to implementer-expert-agent instead.
failing-test-writer
Test-first coding agent. Use in Step 2 of the development workflow after the plan file is ready. Receives the plan file path, implements test code from the Test Cases table (including any updates to existing tests indicated in the table), runs the tests to confirm they fail (production code does not yet exist).…
verify
The verify agent of /auto. Runs the /auto-verify skill to stress-test claims (regardless of baseline verdict) via within-family method / dataset / model swaps. Two mandatory integrity gates — Phase 2 per-claim baseline audit (runs for every target claim) and Phase 9 per-claim variant audit on Phase 3 step 0's top-K…