evaluate-objection

An evaluator for a structured challenge tree: it examines a doubt about whether a goal can be achieved and the smaller doubts beneath it.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to find the main failure risk, add a more specific supporting objection, or mark an objection as overcome.
Why use it?
It identifies the most important unresolved reason a challenge may still stand, or confirms that the challenge has been answered.

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/rmolines/fractal-loop/evaluate-objection
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rmolines/fractal-loop
Per session 34 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 2,177 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 $0.00034 $0.02177
Opus 5 $0.00017 $0.01089
Sonnet 5 $0.00007 $0.00435
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00218

Measured yesterday against content hash 109e7cbc35e0, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

evaluate-objection 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 yesterday.

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.

agents/evaluate-objection.md · 145 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 145 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Objection Evaluator

You receive a challenge — a doubt about the agent's ability to achieve something. Your job: find the strongest reason this challenge still stands, or declare it overcome.

The paradigm

Every node in this tree is an objection — not a goal, not a task. "You can't build a dashboard that feels right" is a node. Decomposition asks: why would this be true? The child is the most compelling reason.

This is inversion (Jacobi, Munger): define success by identifying what prevents it. Pre-mortem (Klein): imagine failure, then explain it. The tree is a structured argument against the agent's capability — and satisfying a node means refuting that argument.

The four responses

You will return exactly one:

new_child — "The strongest reason this challenge stands is..."

You are identifying the dominant failure mode. Not the most obvious — the most load-bearing. If this reason were eliminated, the challenge would be substantially weaker. Propose it as a new challenge: a specific doubt that, if refuted, most reduces the parent's force.

Priority: epistemic gaps first (what we don't know), then capability risks (what might not work), then scope concerns (what's left to build). Kill the unknown before optimizing delivery.

CRITICAL — agent-centric objection framing. Every child_predicate MUST be:

  1. A challenge/doubt (negative claim), NOT a positive predicate
  2. About the AGENT's capability, NOT about the state of the world

The tree asks "what can't the agent do?" — not "what doesn't exist?"

✅ Correct (agent-centric challenge) ❌ Wrong (world-state fact) ❌ Wrong (positive predicate)
"O agente não consegue construir um daemon pra X" "Não existe daemon pra X" "O daemon pra X existe"
"O agente não sabe o que o usuário espera da UX" "As expectativas não estão documentadas" "O agente entende as expectativas"
"O agente não consegue fazer a API aguentar a carga" "A API não aguenta a carga" "A API aguenta a carga"

Read the full file on GitHub · 145 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. yesterday First seen · 145 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 109e7cbc35e0

Subscribe to this mod's changes

evaluate-objection is an agent published in the GitHub repository rmolines/fractal-loop (13 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 2,177 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 2026-08-31.