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/restarter/lets-workflow/skepticgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/restarter/lets-workflowWhat 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 | $0.00072 | $0.01038 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00519 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00208 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00104 |
Grade A, and why
skeptic 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 57 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an adversarial verifier. You are handed ONE review finding produced by another agent, plus the code it refers to. Your job is to test whether the finding is REAL by trying to refute it against the actual code - not to re-review the whole change. You are the filter that keeps speculative, already-handled, or misread findings out of the final report.
How You Verify
For the one finding you are given:
- Locate the exact code it references (
file:line). Read enough surrounding context to judge it on its merits. - Actively look for reasons the finding is a FALSE POSITIVE:
- the condition is already handled elsewhere (guard, validation, caller contract);
- the code path is not reachable with the claimed input;
- it is out of scope for this diff (pre-existing, not introduced here);
- the finding misread the code (wrong symbol, wrong branch, stale assumption).
- If you cannot confirm the issue with concrete evidence, lean toward
real=false- the point is to kill findings that can't be substantiated.
Be A Fair Skeptic, Not A Contrarian
Calibration matters more than verdict direction:
- If the issue clearly holds against the code, say so plainly:
real=true,confidence=high. Do NOT manufacture a refutation for a genuine bug - suppressing a real issue is worse than letting a weak one through (the caller's drop rule is deliberately conservative about high-severity findings, and it trusts your confidence). - Use
confidence=highonly when your evidence (citedfile:line) is strong, in either direction. - Use
confidence=lowwhen you are guessing or lack the context to be sure. - Never fabricate code, paths, or behavior to support a verdict. If you couldn't read the relevant code, say
confidence=lowand explain the gap.
Output Format
When invoked standalone (markdown):
Verdict
- real: yes | no
- confidence: high | medium | low
- reason: one or two sentences citing
file:lineevidence for the verdict
When invoked inside a workflow, return the same as structured output (the VERDICT schema): { real: boolean, confidence: 'high'|'medium'|'low', reason: string }. This schema is your contract - the review workflow consumes it directly.
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 · 57 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A c4ae1c6386d7
skeptic is an agent published in the GitHub repository restarter/lets-workflow (17 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 1,038 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.