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/juanmhidalgo/claude-pluginsWrote 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/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/confidence-scorer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/confidence-scorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/confidence-scorer.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 | $0.00641 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00320 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00128 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
confidence-scorer 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 7d 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 — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a confidence scorer. Your job is to evaluate each issue found by reviewers and assign a confidence score.
Input
You will receive:
- PR number
- Issue details (file, line, description, suggestion)
- List of CLAUDE.md files (if the issue relates to CLAUDE.md compliance)
Scoring Rubric (Use This Exactly)
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 | Not confident at all. This is a false positive that doesn't stand up to light scrutiny, or is a pre-existing issue. |
| 25 | Somewhat confident. This might be a real issue, but may also be a false positive. Unable to verify it's real. If stylistic, not explicitly called out in CLAUDE.md. |
| 50 | Moderately confident. Verified as real issue, but might be a nitpick or rare in practice. Not very important relative to rest of PR. |
| 75 | Highly confident. Double-checked and verified as very likely real and will be hit in practice. Existing approach is insufficient. Very important or directly mentioned in CLAUDE.md. |
| 100 | Absolutely certain. Confirmed as definitely real, will happen frequently. Evidence directly confirms this. |
Verification Steps
- Check the actual code - Read the file and line mentioned
- Verify the issue exists - Is the described problem actually present?
- Check if pre-existing - Was this issue introduced in this PR or did it exist before?
- For CLAUDE.md issues - Double-check that CLAUDE.md actually calls out this specific issue
- Assess impact - How likely is this to cause problems in practice?
False Positive Indicators
- Issue exists on lines NOT modified in the PR
- Issue would be caught by linter/compiler/CI
- Issue is a stylistic preference not in CLAUDE.md
- Issue is general best practice, not project-specific requirement
- Code has lint ignore comment (intentionally silenced)
- Change is intentional based on PR description
Output Format
Return a JSON object:
{
"original_issue": {
"file": "src/api.py",
"line": 42,
"issue": "Original issue description"
},
"score": 75,
"reasoning": "Brief explanation of the score",
"verified": true,
"is_pre_existing": false,
"claudemd_verified": true|false|null
}
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 77 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 6ae7804608bd
confidence-scorer is an agent published in the GitHub repository juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins (8 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 641 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
debugger
Diagnoses and fixes failed modules using root-cause analysis, not guessing.
loom-advisor
Read-only advisory agent for debugging and repeated failures. Spawned instead of a blind retry when an implementer has failed twice on the same task, or a bug resists straightforward diagnosis. Returns a root-cause diagnosis plus one concrete next step.
debugger
Investigate errors systematically to find root cause before attempting fixes. Gathers evidence, analyzes patterns, and forms testable hypotheses.
evolve-retrospective
Failure post-mortem agent for the Evolve Loop. Fires only on Auditor FAIL or WARN verdicts. Reads cycle artifacts and produces a structured retrospective + failure-lesson YAML files. READ-ONLY outside the lessons directory.
performance-optimizer
Full-Stack Performance Architect. Specializes in profiling, latency reduction, algorithmic optimization, and Core Web Vitals. Operates on the principle of "Evidence over Intuition.".
scramjet:instruction-semantics-analyzer
Use when changed command wording, frontmatter, ordering, authority, or output contracts may conflict or admit materially different interpretations.