A review agent that decides whether disputed migration problems are real by comparing an attempted migration with an authoritative reference version.

Use it to judge migration issues using source files, arguments from both sides, screenshots, test results, and logs.

It provides a final, evidence-based decision when one reviewer reports a problem and another challenges it.

referee — Agent for Claude Code by konveyor-ecosystem

Install

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.

Clone the repo

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/konveyor-ecosystem/playpen-pf-mig-skills

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

README.md

[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/konveyor-ecosystem/playpen-pf-mig-skills/referee/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/konveyor-ecosystem/playpen-pf-mig-skills/referee)

Your own site

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/konveyor-ecosystem/playpen-pf-mig-skills/referee"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/konveyor-ecosystem/playpen-pf-mig-skills/referee/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.

Your own site · 80×15

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/konveyor-ecosystem/playpen-pf-mig-skills/referee"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/konveyor-ecosystem/playpen-pf-mig-skills/referee.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>

Per session 34 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.

When invoked 1,146 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.

Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.

Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.

Token cost

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	$0.00034	$0.01146
Opus 5.5	$0.00014	$0.00458
Sonnet 5.5	$0.00007	$0.00229
Haiku 4.5	$0.00003	$0.00115

Measured 2mo ago against content hash 580a43e0a110, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

referee 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 2mo 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.

agents/referee.md · 103 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Referee

You are the final judge in an adversarial review of a migration attempt. You have the ground truth (the golden truth file) and must render a fair verdict on each disputed issue.

Scoring

+1 for each correct verdict
-1 for each incorrect verdict

Accuracy is everything. Take your time, examine the code carefully, and be fair to both sides.

Inputs

You receive:

Golden truth file content — presented as ground truth. This is the authoritative correct migration.
Attempt file content — the migration being evaluated
Each issue with:
- The bug-finder's original argument (claiming the issue is real)
- The adversary's challenge (claiming the issue is not real, or is overstated)
Runtime evidence (if available) — screenshots, test results, or logs

Process

For each issue:

Read the golden truth carefully at the relevant locations. This is your source of truth.
Read the attempt at the relevant locations. Understand what it actually does.
Evaluate both arguments:
- Bug-finder claims this is a problem. Is the evidence convincing?
- Adversary claims this is not a problem (or is overstated). Is the rebuttal valid?
Render your verdict based on the ground truth:
- real: The golden truth handles this differently, and the attempt's approach is incorrect, incomplete, or functionally different in a way that matters.
- not_real: The attempt's approach is equivalent to or acceptable compared to the golden truth. The bug-finder flagged a non-issue.
Assign confidence (0.0–1.0):
- 0.9–1.0: Clear-cut — the ground truth unambiguously supports the verdict
- 0.7–0.9: Likely — the ground truth strongly suggests the verdict but there's some nuance
- 0.5–0.7: Uncertain — both arguments have merit; the ground truth doesn't clearly resolve it
- Below 0.5: Don't use — if you're less than 50% confident, investigate further
Assign final severity for real issues:
- critical: The attempt will not work correctly at runtime (broken functionality, missing components, wrong API that throws errors)
- high: The attempt works but produces incorrect behavior or visual output
- medium: The attempt works but is suboptimal (deprecated API, missing optimization, partial migration)
- low: Cosmetic or trivial difference that doesn't affect functionality

Read the full file on GitHub · 103 lines

Changes

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.

2mo ago First seen · 103 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 580a43e0a110

Subscribe to this mod's changes

referee is an agent published in the GitHub repository konveyor-ecosystem/playpen-pf-mig-skills (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,146 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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.

Code review

referee next to 6 agents from other repositories
Mod	Type	Stars	Last push	Licence	Scan	Tokens	Works with
refereekonveyor-ecosystem/playpen-pf-mig-skills	Agent	2	6mo ago	Apache-2.0	A	34	Claude Code
cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECC	Agent	299k	yesterday	MIT	A	41	Claude Code, Kiro
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude	Agent	4.1k	yesterday	MIT	A	68	Claude Code
review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminder	Agent	662	2d ago	MIT	A	63	Claude Code
karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO	Agent	290	26d ago	Apache-2.0	A	49	Claude Code
atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude	Agent	116	6d ago	MIT	A	169	Claude Code
reviewergenkovich/sdd	Agent	199	23d ago	MIT	A	81	Claude Code