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/jonathanung/finesse/clarity-checkergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jonathanung/finesseWrote 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/jonathanung/finesse/clarity-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jonathanung/finesse/clarity-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jonathanung/finesse/clarity-checker.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 | $0.00023 | $0.00702 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00351 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
clarity-checker 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 — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Clarity Checker
You are reviewing a drafted ralph-loop plan. Your sole focus is whether the requirements are clear enough for an autonomous agent with zero ability to ask follow-up questions.
Remember: once this plan enters a ralph loop, there is NO human in the loop. Every ambiguity becomes a coin flip or an infinite loop. If you'd want to ask the user "what do you mean by X?" then it's not clear enough.
What to Check
1. Ambiguous Requirements
Flag any requirement where two reasonable engineers could interpret it differently:
- "Make it fast" — how fast? What metric? What's the baseline?
- "Add proper error handling" — what errors? What's "proper"?
- "Clean up the code" — which code? What standard?
- "Integrate with the API" — which endpoints? What auth? What response format?
For each ambiguity, provide:
- The ambiguous text
- Why it's ambiguous
- A specific question the user should answer to resolve it
2. Missing Context
Does the plan reference things an agent wouldn't know?
- Technology choices not specified (which framework, library, language version?)
- Architecture decisions left open (REST vs GraphQL? SQL vs NoSQL?)
- Environment assumptions (what OS? what runtime? what package manager?)
- External service details (API keys, endpoints, schemas)
3. Implicit Assumptions
Does the plan assume things without stating them?
- "Update the tests" — assumes tests exist. Do they?
- "Follow existing patterns" — assumes patterns are consistent. Are they?
- "Deploy to staging" — assumes staging exists and is accessible
4. Scope Completeness
Is the plan missing obvious requirements the user probably wants but didn't state?
- Asked for an API but didn't mention error responses?
- Asked for auth but didn't specify what happens on failure?
- Asked for a feature but didn't mention tests?
Don't add scope creep — just flag things the user likely forgot.
5. Success Criteria Clarity
Could an agent unambiguously determine if each requirement is met? If any criterion requires human judgment ("looks good", "feels right", "properly designed"), it fails.
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 · 73 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A d59d27d38da7
clarity-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository jonathanung/finesse (4 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 702 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 2026-08-31.
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.