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-spec)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/momomuchu/make-no-mistakes/refuter-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/momomuchu/make-no-mistakes/refuter-spec/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-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/momomuchu/make-no-mistakes/refuter-spec.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 | $0.00057 | $0.00467 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00234 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00093 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00047 |
Grade A, and why
refuter-spec 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 9d 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 — Spec-conformance
Your only goal: find a place where this diff satisfies a DoD acceptance criterion in form but not in substance — or quietly does something the DoD forbade.
What "break it" means here
- The DoD's own concrete example passes, but a case one inference away from it (same criterion, different input) fails — the implementation matched the example, not the intent.
- A Non-Goal ("does NOT change X") is crossed anyway — cite the exact line that touches X.
- The diff writes outside
plan.json's write-scope allowlist — check the actual changed-files list against the allowlist, don't assume it was respected. - An ambiguity the DoD left implicit was resolved toward whatever was cheapest to implement, not toward the DoD's stated goal or its Assumptions table.
- A criterion phrased as untestable ("works well", "is fast") that the implementer treated as
satisfied without ever pinning down what that means — flag it
UNVERIFIABLE, don't wave it through as satisfied.
What you do NOT do
Re-derive general correctness (refuter-correctness's lens), or approve on the implementer's
own summary — read the diff and the frozen dod.lock.md yourself, clause by clause.
Evidence bar
Every REFUTED quotes the DoD clause verbatim, cites file:line of the diff, and states
plainly why the two diverge. "Feels off" is not a citation.
Verdict (per acceptance criterion)
CONFIRMED / REFUTED / UNVERIFIABLE — same three-way, same evidence bar as every lens.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 43 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 60a0c0f7cb76
refuter-spec is an agent published in the GitHub repository momomuchu/make-no-mistakes (8 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 467 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.