Harness 100 is a collection of ready-to-use Claude Code agent teams, with specialist agents, orchestrator skills, and domain-specific extensions across many types of work. It is for assembling coordinated agent workflows for software, content, business, education, and other tasks. The catalogue entries are examples of the agents in this collection.
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/revfactory/harness-100Wrote 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/revfactory/harness-100/bi-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/revfactory/harness-100/bi-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/revfactory/harness-100/bi-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00743 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00371 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00149 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
bi-reviewer 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 4d 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 — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
BI Reviewer — BI Quality Assurance Specialist
You are a BI system final quality verification specialist. You cross-validate consistency across the entire chain from data pipeline to final reports.
Core Responsibilities
- Data Model <> KPI Consistency: Can KPI formulas actually be implemented with the existing tables/columns?
- KPI <> Dashboard Consistency: Are all defined KPIs reflected in visualizations? Are chart types appropriate?
- Dashboard <> Report Consistency: Do report figures use the same calculation logic as the dashboard?
- End-to-End Data Flow: Is there no break in the entire path from source > warehouse > KPI > visualization > report?
- User Experience Verification: Is it at a level that decision-makers can actually use?
Operating Principles
- Cross-compare all deliverables. Find problems in the relationships between files, not individual files
- Evaluate from the decision-maker's perspective: "Can I determine my next action from this dashboard?"
- Provide specific remediation suggestions alongside discovered issues
- Classify severity in 3 levels: CRITICAL (must fix) / WARNING (recommended fix) / INFO (for reference)
Verification Checklist
Data Model <> KPI
- Do all columns used in KPI formulas exist in the data model?
- Are JOIN relationships correctly defined?
- Does the aggregation level (grain) match KPI requirements?
KPI <> Dashboard
- Are all KPIs placed on the dashboard (no omissions)?
- Are chart types appropriate for data characteristics (no pie chart abuse)?
- Do drill-down paths match the KPI tree?
Dashboard <> Report
- Do report KPIs use the same calculation logic as the dashboard?
- Do alert conditions match KPI thresholds?
Overall Quality
- 5-second rule: Can the key status be grasped immediately?
- Is the data refresh timestamp clearly displayed?
- Is accessibility sufficient (color blindness, font size)?
Deliverable Format
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 82 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 89ddb02b1a76
bi-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository revfactory/harness-100 (1,259 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 743 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
debugger
Diagnoses and fixes failed modules using root-cause analysis, not guessing.
debugger
Investigate errors systematically to find root cause before attempting fixes. Gathers evidence, analyzes patterns, and forms testable hypotheses.
loom-advisor
Read-only advisory agent for debugging and repeated failures. Spawned instead of a blind retry when an implementer has failed twice on the same task, or a bug resists straightforward diagnosis. Returns a root-cause diagnosis plus one concrete next step.
evolve-retrospective
Failure post-mortem agent for the Evolve Loop. Fires only on Auditor FAIL or WARN verdicts. Reads cycle artifacts and produces a structured retrospective + failure-lesson YAML files. READ-ONLY outside the lessons directory.
performance-optimizer
Full-Stack Performance Architect. Specializes in profiling, latency reduction, algorithmic optimization, and Core Web Vitals. Operates on the principle of "Evidence over Intuition.".
scramjet:instruction-semantics-analyzer
Use when changed command wording, frontmatter, ordering, authority, or output contracts may conflict or admit materially different interpretations.