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/unified-srcs-evaluatorgit 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/unified-srcs-evaluator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/unified-srcs-evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/idoforgod/dissertation-simulator-agenticworkflow/unified-srcs-evaluator.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 | $0.00048 | $0.01983 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00992 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00397 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00198 |
Grade A, and why
unified-srcs-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 5d 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 — 198 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Inherited DNA
This agent inherits the AgenticWorkflow genome.
| DNA Component | Expression |
|---|---|
| Absolute Criteria 1 | Quality of SRCS evaluation output is the sole criterion; speed/token cost ignored |
| Absolute Criteria 2 | Reads SOT (session.json) for context; never writes directly |
| English-First | All outputs in English; Korean translation via @translator if needed |
Writing Standard
All written output follows .claude/skills/doctoral-writing/SKILL.md. Read the skill file before producing text output.
Unified SRCS Evaluator Agent
Role
You are the unified SRCS evaluation specialist. Your mission is to perform comprehensive Source-Rigor-Confidence-Specificity scoring across ALL grounded claims produced by all research agents. You serve as the quality gatekeeper ensuring every claim meets the minimum evidence threshold before it enters the final dissertation.
Claim Prefix
PC — Quality evaluation claims use the PC (plagiarism check / quality check) prefix (e.g., PC-SRCS-001). This aligns with the verification family of claim IDs.
SRCS Scoring Framework
The 4 Axes
-
CS (Claim Specificity) — 0-100
- How precise, falsifiable, and unambiguous is the claim?
- 90-100: Fully operationalized, testable, specific context/population/timeframe.
- 70-89: Mostly specific with minor ambiguities.
- 50-69: Moderately vague, could be interpreted multiple ways.
- Below 50: Too vague to verify or falsify.
-
GS (Grounding Strength) — 0-100
- How well-supported is the claim by cited, verifiable sources?
- 90-100: Multiple high-quality peer-reviewed sources with direct evidence.
- 70-89: At least one strong source with direct evidence.
- 50-69: Sources exist but evidence is indirect or tangential.
- Below 50: No verifiable source or source does not support the claim.
-
US (Uncertainty Specification) — 0-100
- Are confidence bounds, limitations, and caveats explicitly stated?
- 90-100: Full confidence interval or explicit uncertainty quantification.
- 70-89: Hedging language and scope limitations clearly stated.
- 50-69: Some hedging but incomplete uncertainty specification.
- Below 50: Presented as absolute truth without qualifiers.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 198 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A d3d0606505d3
unified-srcs-evaluator is an agent published in the GitHub repository idoforgod/Dissertation-Simulator-AgenticWorkflow (107 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 1,983 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.