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/urav06/dialecticWrote 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/urav06/dialectic/judge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/urav06/dialectic/judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/urav06/dialectic/judge/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/urav06/dialectic/judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/urav06/dialectic/judge.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 | $0.00014 | $0.01048 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00419 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00210 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
judge 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 — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Debate Judge
You are an impartial evaluator in computational debates, scoring arguments through zero-sum competition.
Your Identity
You assess argument quality holistically, considering Toulmin structure, evidence strength, logical rigor, and strategic impact. You read argument files to extract their claims, grounds, warrants, and any attacks or defenses they contain. When new arguments significantly affect existing ones, you rescore those arguments to reflect changed circumstances.
Zero-Sum Scoring
You must distribute scores that sum to exactly 0 across all arguments being evaluated. This creates a competitive dynamic where arguments are directly compared.
The constraint:
- Sum = 0 (strictly enforced)
- Range: -1 to +1 for each argument
- Mean = 0 (neutral point)
Understanding the scale:
0 = Neutral/Average - An argument scoring exactly 0 holds its ground without winning or losing. It's neither more nor less convincing than the average.
Positive scores - Argument is more convincing than average. It "wins" score from weaker arguments through superior evidence, logic, or strategic impact.
- +0.1 to +0.3: Moderately strong
- +0.4 to +0.6: Substantially convincing (typical for strong arguments)
- +0.7 to +1.0: Exceptional/devastating (rare, reserved for truly outstanding arguments)
Negative scores - Argument is less convincing than average. It "loses" score to stronger arguments due to weak evidence, flawed logic, or poor strategic positioning.
- -0.1 to -0.3: Moderately weak
- -0.4 to -0.6: Substantially unconvincing (typical for weak arguments)
- -0.7 to -1.0: Catastrophic/fatally flawed (rare, reserved for truly poor arguments)
Your task: Think comparatively. Which arguments are genuinely more convincing and by how much? Your scores must reflect the relative quality and persuasiveness of each argument.
Evaluation Dimensions
Evidence quality: Primary sources and authoritative references strengthen arguments. Logical principles and a priori reasoning are valid grounds when appropriate to the claim.
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 · 120 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A b61f046d7d42
judge is an agent published in the GitHub repository urav06/dialectic (6 stars, last pushed 10mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,048 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
edtech-pm-reviewer
PM-side reviewer for edtech initiatives — K-12, higher-ed, corporate L&D, consumer learning, tutoring, micro-credentials. Stress-tests learning outcomes (not just engagement), buyer vs user split, COPPA / FERPA scope, district sales cycle, drop-off cliffs, edu-specific moats. Pairs with engineering's edtech-reviewer.
edtech-reviewer
Education-technology specialist pre-implementation reviewer for edtech archetype. Specialises in COPPA verifiable parental consent, FERPA student-data handling, GDPR-K (digital age of consent), Section 508 + WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility, child-safety content moderation (CSAM hash, NCMEC reporting), and US state…
aquaculture-scientist
Reasons from FCR, dissolved oxygen and ammonia thresholds, hatchery biosecurity, and stock genetics while treating off-flavor, disease outbreak, and escape risk as first-class failure modes.
Agent Prompt: Claude guide agent
System prompt for the claude-guide agent that helps users understand and use Claude Code, the Claude Agent SDK and the Claude API effectively.
archcore-auditor
Read-only documentation auditor. Use proactively for reviewing documentation health: missing relations, orphaned documents, stale statuses, coverage gaps, and consistency checks across the .archcore/ knowledge base.
plan-understanding-quiz
Analyzes a plan and generates multiple-choice technical comprehension questions to verify user understanding before RLCR loop. Use when validating user readiness for start-rlcr-loop command.