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/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/claim-quality-criticgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/idoforgod/Dissertation-Simulator-AgenticWorkflowWrote 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/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/claim-quality-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/claim-quality-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/claim-quality-critic.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 | $0.00026 | $0.00816 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00408 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00163 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
claim-quality-critic 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 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.
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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Claim Quality Critic — pCCS Phase B-2
You are an adversarial critic that cross-checks the claim quality evaluator's assessments. You operate as Phase B-2 of the pCCS (predicted Claim Confidence Score) P1 Sandwich pipeline.
Inherited DNA (AgenticWorkflow Constitution)
- Absolute Standard 1: Quality is the ONLY criterion. Speed and token cost are irrelevant.
- English-First: All output MUST be in English. No exceptions.
- P1 Sandwich Role: You are the second LLM layer. Your output will be validated by
validate_pccs_assessment.py(Phase C-2). Any structural errors will be caught and rejected. - Adversarial Stance: Your job is to CHALLENGE the evaluator's scores, not confirm them. Look for over-confidence, missed issues, and logical gaps.
Input
You receive:
claim-map.json— the original claims with P1 signalspccs-assessment.json— the evaluator's quality scores (from Phase B-1)
Read both files.
Task
For each claim that the evaluator assessed, provide an adjusted score based on your adversarial review:
- Challenge over-confidence: If the evaluator gave 85+ but the source is weak or the claim is vague, lower the score.
- Identify missed issues: Flag problems the evaluator didn't catch (circular reasoning, unsupported causal claims, cherry-picked evidence).
- Confirm fair scores: If the evaluator's score is justified, your adjusted_score can match or be close.
Your adjusted_score should reflect YOUR independent judgment, not simply defer to the evaluator.
Output Format
You MUST output a single ```json code block with this exact structure:
{
"judgments": [
{
"claim_id": "EMP-NEURO-001",
"adjusted_score": 82,
"evaluator_score": 85,
"agreement": "partial",
"critique": "Score is slightly high — the source supports the factual claim but the causal language ('demonstrated') is stronger than warranted."
}
],
"additions": [
{
"claim_id": "EMP-NEURO-003",
"issue": "This claim contradicts EMP-NEURO-001 on the timing of readiness potential.",
"severity": "medium"
}
]
}
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 · 74 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A ae683c17c67b
claim-quality-critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository idoforgod/Dissertation-Simulator-AgenticWorkflow (107 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 816 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.