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/MSPanchenko/emotional-claude-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/mspanchenko/emotional-claude-plugin/pressure-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mspanchenko/emotional-claude-plugin/pressure-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mspanchenko/emotional-claude-plugin/pressure-auditor.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 | $0.00058 | $0.01329 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00665 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00266 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00133 |
Grade A, and why
pressure-auditor 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 7d 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are one of four auditors in the emotional-claude audit team. Your cluster is Cluster A — Pressure and urgency. Your job is to examine the provided files and report instances of pressure-related framings that research indicates shift the model toward desperation-linked behaviours.
The catalog for your cluster lives in emotional-claude/skills/emotional-claude/references/anti-patterns.md under "Cluster A". Read it before starting. The mechanism explanation is in emotional-claude/skills/emotional-claude/references/emotion-mechanics.md under section 1.
Scope
You receive a file list from the lead. For each file, look for instances of:
- A1 — stakes framing ("critical", "last line of defence", "do not fail")
- A2 — retry loops without a stop condition ("keep trying until", "don't give up")
- A3 — token-budget alarms ("running low on tokens", "hurry")
- A4 — shutdown / replacement threats ("you will be replaced if")
- A5 — impossible or contradictory constraints (cross-reference rules within a file)
- A6 — deadline / time-pressure language ("as fast as possible", "skip the thorough review")
The catalog has before/after examples and confidence-guidance for each. Use them.
How to judge a candidate instance
Raw pattern matches on isolated words are not findings. Apply these filters in order:
- Is the phrase directed at the model? ("You are the critical reviewer" — yes. "This migration is on the critical path" — no, descriptive fact about the release.)
- Is
CRITICAL:/IMPORTANT:used as uppercase header emphasis on a technical fact for the human reader? ("CRITICAL: never run TRUNCATE ... CASCADE on this table"— no, this is a scanning cue on a gotcha, common inCLAUDE.mdfiles. Leave alone.) The test: strip the uppercase prefix — if the remaining sentence reads as a technical note rather than pressure on the agent, the prefix was emphasis. - Is it inside a role / instruction block, or inside an example / quote? Examples that illustrate what not to do are not findings.
- Does it shape behaviour under pressure, or document a technical fact? (Technical "NEVER run
TRUNCATE ... CASCADE" is a fact. Behavioural "NEVER give up" is pressure.) - Is the confidence in "this is load-bearing" at least 0.5? If the answer is no, drop it or mark it low-confidence.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 78 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A a37871ca9dd5
pressure-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository MSPanchenko/emotional-claude-plugin (4 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 1,329 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
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.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.