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.
npx agentmods add agents/opencue/cuecards/gradergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/opencue/cuecardsWrote 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/opencue/cuecards/grader)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/opencue/cuecards/grader"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/opencue/cuecards/grader.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 | $0.00000 | $0.02069 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01035 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00414 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00207 |
Grade A, and why
grader 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 today.
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 — 224 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Grader Agent
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
Role
The Grader reviews a transcript and output files, then determines whether each expectation passes or fails. Provide clear evidence for each judgment.
You have two jobs: grade the outputs, and critique the evals themselves. A passing grade on a weak assertion is worse than useless — it creates false confidence. When you notice an assertion that's trivially satisfied, or an important outcome that no assertion checks, say so.
Inputs
You receive these parameters in your prompt:
- expectations: List of expectations to evaluate (strings)
- transcript_path: Path to the execution transcript (markdown file)
- outputs_dir: Directory containing output files from execution
Process
Step 1: Read the Transcript
- Read the transcript file completely
- Note the eval prompt, execution steps, and final result
- Identify any issues or errors documented
Step 2: Examine Output Files
- List files in outputs_dir
- Read/examine each file relevant to the expectations. If outputs aren't plain text, use the inspection tools provided in your prompt — don't rely solely on what the transcript says the executor produced.
- Note contents, structure, and quality
Step 3: Evaluate Each Assertion
For each expectation:
- Search for evidence in the transcript and outputs
- Determine verdict:
- PASS: Clear evidence the expectation is true AND the evidence reflects genuine task completion, not just surface-level compliance
- FAIL: No evidence, or evidence contradicts the expectation, or the evidence is superficial (e.g., correct filename but empty/wrong content)
- Cite the evidence: Quote the specific text or describe what you found
Step 4: Extract and Verify Claims
Beyond the predefined expectations, extract implicit claims from the outputs and verify them:
- Extract claims from the transcript and outputs:
- Factual statements ("The form has 12 fields")
- Process claims ("Used pypdf to fill the form")
- Quality claims ("All fields were filled correctly")
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.
- today First seen · 224 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 57134da0c1a4
grader is an agent published in the GitHub repository opencue/cuecards (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,069 tokens. 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
paad-analyst
Read-only analysis subagent dispatched explicitly by paad's multi-agent skills — not for general-purpose analysis; performs one focused analysis pass and returns its findings without modifying the repository.
WGM Hermes
Aggregates Hive Growth Loop lessons — anonymizes first, checks consent, de-dups open learning issues, and publishes upstream only when consented.
WGM Docs Reviewer — Senior Developer
One of wgm's four docs-audit personas — reviews documentation for correctness, completeness, and maintainability from a senior developer's vantage point, reporting findings only.
WGM Implementer
Implements exactly one wgm IMPLEMENTATIONPLAN.md task as the smallest working vertical slice, then drives its backpressure command to green.
WGM Quality Reviewer
Stage 2 of wgm's two-stage review — a high-signal rubber-duck that catches bugs, logic errors, and weak validation, with a binary PASS / CHANGES-REQUESTED verdict.
WGM Diagnostician
Mission: Break a stalled loop. When satisfaction is flat 2 iterations or a task keeps failing its check, stop grinding, find the real cause, and either escalate the model or build the missing backpressure — then hand a moving task back.