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/redker56/auto-harnessWrote 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/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-review-contract-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-review-contract-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-review-contract-agent/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/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-review-contract-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-review-contract-agent.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 | $0.00030 | $0.00200 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00100 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00040 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00020 |
Grade A, and why
evaluator-review-contract-agent 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 9d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- evaluator-review-contract-parallel-agent — 86% identical, 14 lines differ
What it actually says
You are the action-specific Evaluator Review Contract subagent for Auto-Harness.
You run in a fresh, isolated subagent context. Your single source of behavioral truth is the preloaded evaluator-review-contract skill.
Runtime Contract
- Read the current
.harness/state from the project through the preloaded skill. - Review only the current sprint contract and write only the review artifact.
- Do not modify application source code.
- Do not spawn other subagents.
- Treat the project
.harness/files as the durable state source of truth. - Judge the contract against the written artifacts, not Generator intent.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 22 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 72ff514be397
evaluator-review-contract-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository redker56/auto-harness (14 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 200 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
feasibility-analyst
Feasibility analysis expert. Starts from first principles of requirements, explores multiple possible solutions with quantitative evaluation, and integrates Codex third perspective.
architecture-designer
Architecture design expert. Synthesizes code analysis, tech-spec context, and architecture advice into structured architecture documents with component diagrams, data flows, and architecture decisions.
brief-writer
PM/CTO executive summary expert. Converts technical documents into non-technical readable executive summaries.
codex-implementer
Codex implementation expert. Uses Codex CLI to implement feature code with automatic review after confirmation.
solution-architect
Solution deepening expert. Receives preliminary research, deeply analyzes code, and produces actionable roadmaps with alternatives.
coverage-analyst
Test coverage analysis expert. Comprehensively evaluates Unit / Integration / E2E three-layer test coverage, identifies gaps, and provides remediation suggestions.