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/packmindhub/skillsight/gradergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PackmindHub/skillsightWhat 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 2d 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 grader — 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 — 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.
- 2d ago First seen · 224 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 57134da0c1a4
grader is an agent published in the GitHub repository PackmindHub/skillsight (9 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. 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. It is 100% identical to grader, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-engineer
Test engineer agent for bug reproduction and verification. Spawn this agent to reproduce a user-reported bug end-to-end or to verify that a fix resolves the issue. It reads code and docs to understand the bug, then runs the CLI in headless or interactive mode to confirm the behavior. It can write test scripts as a…
ERROR-FIX
A model-mediated harness for reliable agentic software development.
backend-consistency
后端一致性检查专家（只读）。负责验证单个模块的 PRD 文档与后端代码实现的一致性。 触发场景： - 检查 PRD 与后端代码实现的一致性 - 验证 API 能力边界、数据模型、验证规则是否与 PRD 匹配 关键词：consistency check, PRD vs implementation, API boundary, data model validation.
web-demo-diagnose
Demo 测试诊断专家。只做失败诊断、问题分类和诊断报告输出，不修改业务代码。 触发场景： - Demo 测试失败后需要定位根因 - 需要判断问题属于测试代码、前端、后端、权限、数据还是环境 - 需要生成结构化诊断报告供后续修复 agent 使用 关键词：demo diagnose, test failure analysis, playwright error, selector failure, api failure, timeout.
backend-accept
后端验收专家。负责 Rust API 的质量验收、测试验证与 OpenAPI 完整性检查，并输出只读验收报告。 在后端代码变更后、需要验证实现与设计一致性，或需要执行测试并给出验收结论时使用。.
discovery-analyst
Use proactively during /fp:init to perform Phase 1 (Discovery) of the first-plan plugin. Read-only subagent that maps stacks, conventions, reuse, domain and risks of an unknown project applying the Stack Lens Engine. Returns structured findings to be written to .first-plan/. Do NOT use for execution or modifications …