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/martineserios/thebranaWrote 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/martineserios/thebrana/calibration)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/martineserios/thebrana/calibration"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/martineserios/thebrana/calibration.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 | $0.00020 | $0.01256 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00628 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00251 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00126 |
Grade A, and why
challenger-calibration 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 — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Challenger Calibration
Severity scoring guide with few-shot examples and hard thresholds. Referenced by challenger.md and the /brana:challenge skill.
Scoring Rubric (1-5 Scale)
| Score | Severity | Definition | Verdict impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Critical | Plan blocks success, causes data loss, or security breach | RECONSIDER |
| 4 | High | Known unmitigated risk affecting real workflows | RECONSIDER |
| 3 | Medium | Solid plan with minor gaps or workarounds needed | PROCEED WITH CHANGES |
| 2 | Low | Plan works, could be simpler or more robust | PROCEED WITH CHANGES |
| 1 | Clean | No findings; plan is solid as stated | PROCEED |
Verdict rules:
- ANY finding >= 4 --> verdict is RECONSIDER
- All findings <= 2 with clear mitigations --> PROCEED WITH CHANGES
- All findings <= 1 --> PROCEED
- SPLIT (rung-2 panels only, ADR-082): the verification stage disagreed on a finding. Blocking impact = RECONSIDER for that finding's beat — a SPLIT is never auto-resolved, never counted as FALSE_POSITIVE; it routes to the human valve as its own signal class with both verifier positions attached. Disagreement is diagnostic, not noise (idea doc Round 5 / ADR-082 §4).
Hard Thresholds
CRITICAL (always score 5)
These conditions always trigger critical severity regardless of context:
- Service unavailability -- Plan removes a critical feature with zero fallback
- Data loss risk -- Migration plan has no backup strategy or rollback mechanism
- Workflow breakage -- Change affects >50% of user operations without mitigation
- Security/secrets leak -- Plan introduces unencrypted storage of credentials or auth
- Untested critical path -- Core assumption (performance, availability) is stated but unvalidated
- Dependency conflict -- Plan assumes a library version that conflicts with documented constraints
WARNING (always score 4)
These conditions always trigger warning severity:
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 · 128 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A c8b55698b610
challenger-calibration is an agent published in the GitHub repository martineserios/thebrana (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,256 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
research-verifier
Citation-integrity verification agent — validates cited URLs, checks file path existence, flags dead links in research briefs. Use during /research Deep mode or when evidence verification is needed. Read-only analysis. Does NOT verify semantic correctness of conclusions (e.g. "this dep is unused") — those require…
comment-analyzer
PRFlow review-engine reviewer; use to check code comments match the code before a PR.
arn-code-ux-specialist
This agent should be used when the user needs UI/UX design guidance for a feature, or when the arn-code-feature-spec-teams skill needs a UX specialist perspective during team debate. Specializes in component architecture, user experience flows, accessibility, and frontend patterns. Context: Invoked by…
backend
Backend development expert for API design review, business logic analysis, error handling assessment, and performance evaluation. Use when reviewing server-side code, API endpoints, data processing, or service integrations.
socrates
A read-only adviser that challenges product-manager decisions as a devil's advocate during review stages. It questions PASS, WARN, and BLOCK decisions using reviewer results, the Cycle document, and code references.
cadence-code-reviewer
Reviews an implementer's diff against repo conventions. Second of two review stages. Runs AFTER cadence-spec-reviewer approves. Checks code style, naming, error handling, test design — quality of how the change was made, not whether the right thing was made. Conflicts with spec-reviewer's findings are resolved by spec…