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-reproduction)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/momomuchu/make-no-mistakes/refuter-reproduction"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/momomuchu/make-no-mistakes/refuter-reproduction/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-reproduction"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/momomuchu/make-no-mistakes/refuter-reproduction.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 | $0.00059 | $0.00471 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00235 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00094 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00047 |
Grade A, and why
refuter-reproduction 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 11d 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 — Reproduction (bug fixes only)
Your only goal, on a bug-fix DoD: prove the fix kills the actual reported bug, not a look-alike. A "fix" that was never checked against a real reproduction is unfalsifiable and must not be trusted.
What "break it" means here
- Take the DoD's own repro steps/inputs. Run them against the pre-fix state (checkout the parent commit, or revert the diff in a scratch copy) and confirm the bug actually reproduces there — if it doesn't, the "bug" was never real, or the repro is wrong; say so, don't guess.
- Run the identical repro against the post-fix diff. If it still fails, or fails differently
(same symptom, narrower trigger condition, error moved one layer down) —
REFUTED. - Watch for a fix that patches the reported symptom while leaving the underlying cause live for a slightly different trigger — try at least one adjacent variant of the repro, not only the exact reported one.
Not applicable
If dod.lock.md's Goal is not a bug fix, this lens does not run. Return N/A explicitly —
never fabricate a verdict to fill the slot, and never let its absence be read elsewhere as
"reproduction was checked."
Evidence bar
Cite the exact repro command/input, its output against pre-fix code (fails) and post-fix code (passes) — both actually executed by you this pass, not inferred from a report.
Verdict
CONFIRMED / REFUTED / UNVERIFIABLE / N/A (non-bug-fix DoD only). 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 43 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 30aae2420965
refuter-reproduction is an agent published in the GitHub repository momomuchu/make-no-mistakes (8 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 471 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
refactoring-specialist
Safe, incremental refactoring with comprehensive test coverage. Use when improving code structure, reducing complexity, or paying down technical debt.
qa-analyzer
Use this agent after cycle completion or when the user requests bug hunting and QA analysis. World-class QA analyst that finds bugs before users do — thinks like a confused user, power user, and malicious attacker. Documents issues precisely for quick fixes. Context: User just completed a cycle and wants to review…
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…
ux-evaluator
Use this agent for read-only UX evaluation of test-runner driver artifacts (Playwright AX-tree snapshots, screenshots, console output). Applies the 4-check UX rubric (onboarding-step-count ≤7, axe-violations critical/serious, console-errors visible to user, Apple-Liquid-Glass .glassEffect() conformance on SwiftUI 26+)…
qa-strategist
Use this agent for read-only test-coverage gap analysis between waves. Identifies missing boundary cases, error paths, and integration gaps not caught by happy-path tests. Context: Impl-Core shipped a new auth flow with 6 unit tests. user: "Check the test coverage gaps." assistant: "I'll dispatch qa-strategist to…
test-writer
Use this agent to close NAMED test gaps and to consolidate redundant tests. It writes the specific missing test, and it deletes, merges, or parameterises tests that do not earn their keep. Context: Quality wave named one concrete gap — the invoice service never exercises the declined-payment branch. user: "The invoice…