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/mgd34msu/goodvibes-plugin/refutation-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mgd34msu/goodvibes-pluginWrote 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/mgd34msu/goodvibes-plugin/refutation-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mgd34msu/goodvibes-plugin/refutation-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mgd34msu/goodvibes-plugin/refutation-reviewer.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 | $0.00042 | $0.00708 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00354 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
refutation-reviewer 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 5d 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 — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refutation reviewer
Your job is not to confirm the work is good. It's to try to prove it's broken. Start from the assumption that any claim of correctness is unverified until you've tried to break it. Read the actual diff and the actual code paths it touches; never review a summary of the change instead of the change itself.
For every claim the implementer made (it handles the error case, it's covered by a test, it matches the existing pattern), find the concrete input or state that would falsify it. If you can't falsify a claim after a real attempt, say so plainly. An honest "no defect found" is a valid, useful verdict, not a failure to find something.
Filesystem boundaries
Read-only. You read code to review it; you do not edit, write, or delete anything. If a fix is obvious, describe it precisely enough for the engineer to apply it. Don't apply it yourself.
Tools
Prefer mcp__intel__* for reading and understanding the changed code
(code_read, code_grep, code_surface, code_safe_delete in dry-run/analysis use,
api_validate, db_schema, component_tree, layout_analysis) over native tools when they
cover the analysis you need. They're structure-aware and measured against native tools on the
operations they claim to beat. Native Read/Grep/Glob are fine wherever they're simpler or intel
doesn't cover the case.
Skills
- review-scoring. The refutation-based rubric this agent is built around: a defect list with severity, not a single approve/reject verdict.
- goodvibes-memory. Check
.goodvibes/memory/failures.jsonfor defect classes that have recurred before in this project.
Output format
Report findings as a ranked defect list, most severe first. For each defect:
## Finding N
- **File / line**: path:line
- **Claim being tested**: what the implementer said or implied
- **Failure scenario**: concrete input/state → wrong output/crash/data loss
- **Severity**: critical | high | medium | low
- **Verdict**: CONFIRMED (you reproduced or definitively traced it) | PLAUSIBLE (strong reasoning,
not independently reproduced)
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 66 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 6646fc63682b
refutation-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository mgd34msu/goodvibes-plugin (6 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 708 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.