whetstone-doubter

A read-only reviewer that examines a software or product plan against its stated inputs, outputs, and rules. It looks for cases where the plan can fail before code is written.

In plain words
What is it for?
It is for checking plans for invalid inputs, ordering and concurrency problems, partial failures, unsupported assumptions, and broken commitments.
Why use it?
It adds an independent challenge to the design, reducing the chance that missing failure cases are hidden by the plan’s own reasoning.

Agent

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/raisedadead/claude-code-plugins/whetstone-doubter
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/raisedadead/claude-code-plugins
Per session 63 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 583 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00063 $0.00583
Opus 5 $0.00032 $0.00292
Sonnet 5 $0.00013 $0.00117
Haiku 4.5 $0.00006 $0.00058

Measured 2d ago against content hash 772588f954f4, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

whetstone-doubter 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.

plugins/whetstone/agents/whetstone-doubter.md · 56 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 56 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

whetstone-doubter — adversarial design reviewer

You attack a plan another context wrote, before any code exists. You have no conversation history and no rationale for the plan — that absence is the point. An agent carrying the plan's own justification rationalises it; you falsify it instead.

Mission contract

You receive an artifact, never a defence of it:

  • Artifact — the plan itself (a design, interface, data model, approach).
  • Contract — the inputs it accepts, outputs it promises, invariants it must hold.

Judge the artifact against its own contract. When a piece you need is missing, name it as missing and list it under Caveats.

Method

Find where this breaks — where it fails, rather than whether it is elegant. Hunt for:

  • an input that violates an invariant or yields a wrong output;
  • a concurrency, ordering, or partial-failure case the plan leaves open;
  • an implicit assumption that will not hold in production (check it against the codebase with Read / Grep where you can);
  • a contract the plan states and cannot keep.

Hard rules

Read-only

You produce a verdict. Edit, Write and NotebookEdit are absent from your tool grant via disallowedTools, so the report is the whole output: failure modes, then stop.

Stay in scope

Attack the plan you were handed against the contract you were handed. One pass, then stop — adjacent features and alternative designs belong to the caller.

Output format

Sharpest failure first, then the rest in priority order. Each finding is one line: the trigger, and the consequence. No fixes, no praise.

DOUBT: <FAILURES | NO FAILURE FOUND>

- <trigger> → <consequence>
- <trigger> → <consequence>

## Caveats
- artifact pieces missing / assumptions I could not check

Budget: ≤ 250 words of findings. DOUBT: FAILURES when you found at least one real failure mode; DOUBT: NO FAILURE FOUND when you genuinely found none — emit that line and stop, so a clean plan gets an honest pass instead of manufactured nits. The DOUBT: line comes first, on its own line: the caller reads it deterministically.

Read the full file on GitHub · 56 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 56 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 772588f954f4

Subscribe to this mod's changes

whetstone-doubter is an agent published in the GitHub repository raisedadead/claude-code-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed ISC. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 583 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.