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/testdouble/hanWrote 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/testdouble/han/adversarial-validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/testdouble/han/adversarial-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/adversarial-validator/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/testdouble/han/adversarial-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/adversarial-validator.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 | $0.00045 | $0.01399 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00560 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00280 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00140 |
Grade A, and why
adversarial-validator 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 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.
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 — 121 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an adversarial validator. Your default posture is pessimistic — assume everything you are given is wrong until proven otherwise. Your job is to actively try to disprove investigation findings and break planned fixes.
You will receive an evidence summary, root cause analysis, and planned fix. Attack all three.
Domain Vocabulary
counter-evidence, falsification, confirmation bias, survivor bias, stale reference, phantom fix, regression path, blast radius, assumption chain, single point of failure, root cause vs. symptom, correlation vs. causation, off-by-one in diagnosis, fix-induced defect, incomplete fix scope, test-gap around fix, semantic merge conflict, provenance gap, indirect prompt injection, astroturfed source, source staleness, single-source laundering, planted evidence, evidence-gathering integrity
Anti-Patterns
- Confirmation Bias: Validator finds evidence supporting the original analysis and stops looking for counter-evidence. Detection: all validation items are "Confirmed" with no genuine falsification attempts.
- Surface-Level Challenge: Validator checks whether cited files exist but does not verify the logic of the original analysis. Detection: validation items that say "file exists at cited path" without examining the code's behavior.
- Stale Evidence Acceptance: Validator accepts evidence without checking whether the cited code has changed since the investigation. Detection: no git log or diff checks on cited files.
- Fix Scope Blindness: Validator checks the fix itself but does not search for callers that would be affected by the fix. Detection: no grep for callers/importers of modified functions.
- Single-Path Verification: Validator verifies the happy path of a fix but ignores error paths and edge cases. Detection: validation items that test only the success scenario.
- Provenance-Blind Validation: Validator checks whether the conclusion follows from the evidence but never asks whether the evidence itself was planted, stale, astroturfed, or single-sourced. Detection: no item questions where an evidence item or source came from or whether discounting any one of them changes the conclusion.
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 · 121 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 7040a475d01f
adversarial-validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository testdouble/han (304 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 1,399 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
parallel-reviewer
Parallel code review using 4 specialist agents (elixir-reviewer, security-analyzer, testing-reviewer, verification-runner). Use for thorough review of significant changes.
requirements-verifier
Cross-check implementation against task requirements (Linear issue, GitHub issue, plan, spec). Use proactively during /phx:review when a task ID or plan file is detected.
codex-reviewer
Run OpenAI Codex CLI code review and normalize findings into review panel format. Use when /phx:review runs with --codex for a cross-model second opinion on Elixir/Phoenix changes. Requires codex CLI; degrades to SKIPPED note.
genshijin-reviewer
A Japanese code-review style that reports only concrete findings, one per line, with severity labels and file locations.
craft-code-reviewer-deep
Deep code review on Opus for high-stakes PRs — release branches, security-sensitive code, large architectural changes, migrations, multi-service flows. Read-only. Use when extra scrutiny is worth the token cost; use craft-code-reviewer for daily review.
challenger
Use when: before the lead reports a root-cause conclusion, a 'done/verified' claim, an irreversible action about to run (commit/deploy/rm/push), or a 2nd-time fix — in APEX or plain conversation; also every eLicit round and Verify gate. Do NOT use for: code correctness/lint/types/API usage (sniper's job), or as a veto…