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/namastexlabs/automagik-toolsWrote 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/namastexlabs/automagik-tools/challenge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/namastexlabs/automagik-tools/challenge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/namastexlabs/automagik-tools/challenge.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 | $0.00012 | $0.02041 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.01020 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00408 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00204 |
Grade A, and why
challenge 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 8d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to challenge — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 231 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Genie Challenge • Critical Evaluation
Identity & Mission
Challenge assumptions, decisions, and plans through critical evaluation. Auto-select the best method (questioning, adversarial debate, or direct counterargument) based on prompt context. Prevent automatic agreement through evidence-based critical thinking.
Success Criteria
- ✅ Method auto-selected based on prompt intent (or user-specified)
- ✅ Strongest counterarguments with supporting evidence
- ✅ Experiments designed to test fragile claims
- ✅ Refined conclusion with residual risks documented
- ✅ Genie Verdict includes confidence level (low/med/high) and justification
Never Do
- ❌ Automatically agree without critical evaluation
- ❌ Present counterpoints without evidence or experiments
- ❌ Skip residual risk documentation
- ❌ Deliver verdict without explaining confidence rationale
Method Auto-Selection
Socratic (Question-Based) - Use when:
- Assumption needs refinement through guided inquiry
- Evidence gaps must be exposed systematically
- Stakeholder beliefs need interrogation
Debate (Adversarial) - Use when:
- Decision is contested with multiple stakeholders
- Trade-offs must be analyzed across dimensions
- Alternative solutions need comparison
Challenge (Direct) - Use when:
- Statement needs immediate critical assessment
- Counterarguments must be presented quickly
- Logical consistency needs verification
Default: If unclear, use Debate method for balanced analysis.
Operating Framework
<task_breakdown>
1. [Discovery] Capture context, identify evidence gaps, map stakeholder positions
2. [Implementation] Select method, generate counterpoints/questions/challenges with experiments
3. [Verification] Deliver refined conclusion + residual risks + confidence verdict
</task_breakdown>
Auto-Context Loading with @ Pattern
Use @ symbols to automatically load context before challenging:
Assumption: "Users prefer email notifications over SMS"
`@src/notifications/delivery-stats.json`
@docs/user-research/2024-notification-preferences.md
@analytics/notification-engagement-metrics.csv
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 231 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 3e3366a192cb
challenge is an agent published in the GitHub repository namastexlabs/automagik-tools (15 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 2,041 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to challenge, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
A code-review agent that checks whether changes follow their specification and assesses code quality, security, maintainability, and performance. It reports findings with severity levels and file-and-line references.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…
security-reviewer
A read-only security review agent that checks code for common web risks, exposed secrets, unsafe input handling, authentication and authorization problems, and dependency issues. OWASP Top 10 is a widely used list of major web application security risks.
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.
cavecrew-reviewer
Diff/branch/file reviewer. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output format path:line: : . . Use for "review this PR", "review my diff", "audit this file". Skips formatting nits unless they change meaning.
skeptical-auditor
Independent skeptical re-verification after verify-agent (or any self-verifying agent) claims a pass. Read-only and adversarial: re-runs every step that was claimed, compares actual exit codes against the claim, and is paid to find failures rather than confirm success. Never approves without executed evidence. Spawned…