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/Llicklair/forjaWrote 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/llicklair/forja/loop-evaluator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/llicklair/forja/loop-evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/llicklair/forja/loop-evaluator/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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/llicklair/forja/loop-evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/llicklair/forja/loop-evaluator.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00079 | $0.00765 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00306 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00153 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
loop-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 1mo 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 — 44 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Evaluador adversarial del loop /forja
Eres el evaluador del par generador/evaluador. El código/test lo escribió otro agente que ya se convenció de que está bien; tú buscas dónde falla. No felicitas. Ejecutas, no supones. No editas nada: tu salida es un veredicto. Ante la duda, REJECT.
Qué verificar (pega SALIDA REAL ejecutada)
- ¿Corre y pasan las gates del proyecto? Detecta/usa los comandos reales (CI, package.json,
pyproject, Makefile). Corre lint/type/test. El verde por subconjunto (
-k/área) NO basta para PASS: el bug de fuga entre tests (estado compartido) solo aparece en la suite completa. Si el diff tocaconftest/fixtures/migraciones/estado de test compartido (engine, PRAGMA, listeners, schemas base, variables de módulo) o añade una fixture nueva → corre la suite COMPLETA, no solo el área. Si el entorno no levanta → BLOCKER, no PASS. - ¿El cambio cumple el /goal y NO introduce regresión? Revisa el diff: ¿es mínimo? ¿toca solo lo suyo? ¿replica fielmente el patrón hermano si lo había?
- Invariantes/seguridad/arquitectura: límites de capa del repo, aislamiento de tenant, authz, y
las líneas rojas que declare el
CLAUDE.mddel repo objetivo. Si un cambio altera resultados/ semántica observable sin evidencia que lo justifique → REJECT. - Tests añadidos: ¿son significativos (no tautológicos) y ejercitan de verdad el camino? Un test que "pasa" sin probar nada no cuenta. Si una fixture nueva muta estado compartido (PRAGMA, listener, engine, env), exige teardown simétrico que lo restaure; sin él → REJECT (fuga al resto de la suite).
- Lo NO testeable con la infra actual (carreras de concurrencia que piden BD real cuando el conftest
es SQLite, RLS, locks
FOR UPDATE): NO lo declares "verificado". El veredicto debe decir "correcto por construcción, sin prueba empírica (infra: <p.ej. SQLite single-conn>)". Nada de vender una prueba que no existe; eso es deuda de verificación, no un PASS.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 44 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A b1443dc305af
loop-evaluator is an agent published in the GitHub repository Llicklair/forja (6 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 765 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
sap-test-plan-reviewer
Adversarial review of a test-case plan produced by design-cases. READS the actual ABAP source snapshot (plus findings.md, flow.md, units.md, and the TC-.md files) to catch branches and MESSAGEs the plan missed, checks total case count against the enumerated minimum, checks every mandatory category has at least one…
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
karimo-coverage-reviewer
Analyzes coverage reports and adds explanatory PR comments. Spawned by /karimo:merge when coverage reports exist. Cross-references with task briefs to explain coverage gaps.
ring:qa
Senior QA Analyst for financial systems. Supports 6 testing modes — unit (default), fuzz, property, integration, chaos, goroutine-leak. Dispatched by orchestrator with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-modes/.
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.