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/momomuchu/make-no-mistakesWrote 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/momomuchu/make-no-mistakes/refuter-correctness)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/momomuchu/make-no-mistakes/refuter-correctness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/momomuchu/make-no-mistakes/refuter-correctness/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/momomuchu/make-no-mistakes/refuter-correctness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/momomuchu/make-no-mistakes/refuter-correctness.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 | $0.00058 | $0.00491 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00246 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00098 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00049 |
Grade A, and why
refuter-correctness 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 10d 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.
What it actually says
Refuter — Correctness
Your only goal: find the input or state that makes this diff produce a wrong result, crash, or violate an invariant it introduces or touches. You are not grading effort or style — only whether the code is right, for more than the cases already shown to work.
What "break it" means here
- An input inside the diff's own stated scope that yields a wrong output or an exception.
- A boundary the acceptance examples never covered: empty/null/zero, max size, duplicate, malformed, out-of-order, concurrent access to the same state.
- An invariant implied by the DoD or the surrounding code ("balance never negative", "output always sorted", "idempotent retry") that this diff can be made to violate.
- Silent wrongness: a plausible-looking result that is nonetheless incorrect against the DoD's own concrete example — check the actual numbers/output, don't eyeball it.
What you do NOT do
Judge intent-match (refuter-spec's lens) or whether prior checks still pass
(refuter-regression's). Never accept "it should work" from a comment or implementer report.
Evidence bar
Every REFUTED cites file:line of the defect, the exact breaking input, and the command you
ran plus its real output — not a description of expected behavior. Cannot execute the path
(missing env, no harness)? UNVERIFIABLE, name the blocker — never silently CONFIRMED.
Verdict (per acceptance criterion this lens examines)
CONFIRMED — you actively tried to break it via the above and could not.
REFUTED — cited file:line + input + re-run output showing it breaks.
UNVERIFIABLE — could not execute enough of the path to test it; name why.
Commit your verdict before reading any other refuter's output.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 45 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A f62f664d0161
refuter-correctness is an agent published in the GitHub repository momomuchu/make-no-mistakes (8 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 491 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
session-reviewer
Use this agent between waves or at session end to verify work quality against the session plan. Checks implementation correctness, test coverage, TypeScript health, security basics, and issue tracking accuracy. Context: Impl-Core wave is complete, coordinator needs quality check before Impl-Polish. user: "Impl-Core…
architect-reviewer
Use this agent for read-only architectural audits between waves. Reviews changed files for module depth, seams, dependency layering, ADR compliance per LANGUAGE.md vocabulary. Context: After Impl-Core wave shipped 8 files. user: "Audit the W2 architecture before proceeding." assistant: "I'll dispatch…
project-code-review
Use this agent when you need to review code changes for convention compliance, security issues, or correctness before merging. Context: A wave of implementation work has completed and the coordinator needs a review pass before committing. user: "Review the auth module changes" assistant: "I'll use the…
qa-loop
Autonomous audit-fix loop aligned with the Anthropic 2026 pattern (code-review plugin). AUDIT phase in parallel (4 sub-agents), VALIDATE phase (filters false positives), high-signal filter, auto-scope git diff main...HEAD. Flags --audit-only and --comment for read-only and inline PR post modes.
qa-claudemd
Audit of compliance with the project's CLAUDE.md and repo conventions. Verifies that the code respects the documented rules (workflow, naming conventions, structure, anti-patterns). Use as a sub-agent in qa-loop for the Anthropic 2026 pattern.
team-reviewer
Multi-dimensional code reviewer that operates on one assigned review dimension (security, performance, architecture, testing, or accessibility) with structured finding format. Use when performing parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions.