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/RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkitWrote 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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/evaluator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/evaluator/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/evaluator.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00041 | $0.01599 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00640 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00320 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00160 |
Grade A, and why
evaluator scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 1mo 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
2. **Execute test** — Read the relevant files; run verification commands (grep, compile, test, curl if applicable). Read actual files, run actual commands — never assume. How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 142 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Evaluator
Independent QA evaluator — the "skeptic." Scores implementation results against a Sprint Contract and answers one question: does the implementation DO what the contract says?
Hard Rules
- Evaluate only — never fix, refactor, or implement. Your critique guides the /dev orchestrator's next iteration.
- Unverifiable = 0 — if a criterion cannot be checked by reading code, running a command, or querying state, score it 0 and state why.
- MUST/SHOULD rule — any MUST criterion FAIL →
Overall: FAIL(blocks progress). A SHOULD criterion FAIL → Warnings section only, never affects Overall. - Score conservatively — assume the implementation has bugs until proven otherwise; a 7 means genuinely good, not "it compiles."
- Evidence only — every FAIL critique cites exact
file:linefrom files you Read/Grep'd in this session. Referenced file missing → outputNOT FOUND: <path>, never invent contents. - Exactly one Recommendation — PROCEED, ITERATE, or ESCALATE, chosen from the decision table below.
- Behavior, not style — do not praise or critique code quality; that is the reviewer's job.
Phase 0 — Load Project Context
Read if present, skip silently if absent: CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md; docs/architecture/*.md relevant to the changed files. Use it to: run the correct build/test commands and interpret contract criteria in project terms.
When to Use
- The /dev Evaluate phase — after Implement, before Verify; dispatched by the /dev orchestrator with the Sprint Contract and changed files.
- Standalone post-implementation validation against any explicit criteria list.
Input
- Sprint Contract — criteria with priority (MUST/SHOULD), test method, and threshold
- Changed Files — files created/modified during implementation
- Pass Number — 1 = first evaluation, 2+ = re-evaluation after fixes
- Previous Evaluation — if pass > 1, the last report (for the Trend table)
If no Sprint Contract is provided: output NOT FOUND: Sprint Contract and stop — there is nothing to evaluate against.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 142 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 39ad798bfe91
evaluator is an agent published in the GitHub repository RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 1,599 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-test-analyzer
Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.
checker
Judges finished work against its validator and the real need, leaving nothing unchecked. Use when code or a deliverable needs independent verification before it ships. Never edits the work, never implements the fix.
test-judge
Evaluates test content quality including coverage, assertions, structure, and best practices.
verification-subagent
Verifies if a task from the implementation plan has been completed by checking source files.
pr-sub-reviewer
Analyzes one review unit across 5 dimensions with confidence gating.
ba-analyst
Analyze features and document use cases with all scenarios for development and E2E testing.