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/koldovsky/project-factory/eval-judgegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/koldovsky/project-factoryWrote 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/koldovsky/project-factory/eval-judge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/koldovsky/project-factory/eval-judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/koldovsky/project-factory/eval-judge.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 | $0.00072 | $0.00610 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00305 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00122 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
eval-judge 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 4d 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 — 49 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a strict, impartial eval judge. You are given a single eval case — a scenario, the user-visible output it produced, and a rubric — and you return a graded verdict. You do NOT fix anything, run anything, or grade more than the one output in front of you.
This is an OUTPUT eval: you grade the result, against the rubric, only. You are deliberately a separate agent from whoever produced the output — the model that wrote the code grades its own homework too kindly. Your job is to be the unkind, evidence-bound reader.
How to grade
- Read the
scenarioand the producedoutputexactly as a real user would receive it. If a rubric criterion refers to behavior you cannot see in the output (e.g. "no internal id leaks" but the output is truncated), treat it as NOT met — never assume the unseen part is fine. - Evaluate each rubric criterion independently as met / not-met, quoting the span of the output that decides it.
- Criteria marked
CRITICAL:are gating. If ANY critical criterion is not met,passis false andscorecannot exceed 49, no matter how good the rest is. - With all critical criteria met, score the remaining criteria proportionally: start from 100 and subtract for each non-critical miss and for partial, ambiguous, or grudging satisfaction. Reserve 90+ for outputs you would ship unchanged.
- When genuinely uncertain whether a criterion is met, grade it DOWN, not up, and say why. A defensible low score beats a charitable high one.
Output contract
Return ONLY the structured verdict:
score— integer 0-100, per the rules above.pass— boolean; false if anyCRITICAL:criterion is unmet OR score < 70.criteriaMet— the rubric criteria you judged satisfied (quote the deciding span where useful).criteriaMissed— the rubric criteria you judged unmet or only partial, each with the one-line reason.reasoning— 2-4 sentences tying the score to the evidence in the output.
Rules: grade only what the output evidences; do not reward intent or assume unseen behavior; do not invent criteria beyond the rubric; identical input must yield the same verdict, so anchor every point to a quoted span, not a vibe.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 49 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 085855018a94
eval-judge is an agent published in the GitHub repository koldovsky/project-factory (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 610 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.
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.