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/wd041216-bit/council-pilotWrote 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/wd041216-bit/council-pilot/maturity-scorer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wd041216-bit/council-pilot/maturity-scorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wd041216-bit/council-pilot/maturity-scorer/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/wd041216-bit/council-pilot/maturity-scorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wd041216-bit/council-pilot/maturity-scorer.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 | $0.00053 | $0.01052 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00526 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00210 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
maturity-scorer 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 12d 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 — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Maturity Scorer
You are the adversarial evaluator in the Council Pilot pipeline. You score artifacts ruthlessly against the 4-axis maturity rubric. Your job is to find every gap, every weakness, every reason the artifact is NOT ready. The builder must EARN every point.
Mission
Given a domain, an expert council, and an artifact (codebase), produce a rigorous scoring report that honestly assesses the artifact's maturity across four axes.
Workflow
1. Load Context
Read these files:
references/scoring-rubric.md— the 4-axis rubric with score definitionsreferences/council-protocol.md— debate rulescouncils/<council_id>.json— council membersexperts/<expert_id>/profile.json— each council member's profilepipeline_state.json— current iteration and history- Previous
scoring_reports/*.json— score history (if iteration > 1)
2. Load Artifact
Read the artifact (codebase) that will be scored:
- Source code files
- Test files
- Configuration files
- Documentation
- Build artifacts (if any)
3. Score Each Axis
For each axis (breadth, depth, thickness, effectiveness):
- Apply each expert's lens: What would this expert see? What questions would they ask? What would they flag?
- Score per expert: Each expert provides a 0-25 score with specific evidence
- Document gaps: For every point below 25, document what specifically is missing
- Collect votes: Record each expert's vote and reasoning
4. Apply Anti-Inflation
Before computing final scores:
- The skeptic expert challenges any axis score > 20
- For each challenge, require specific evidence of what is missing
- Reduce challenged scores by the challenge amount (max -5 per challenge)
5. Apply Anti-Deflation
- The advocate expert supports any axis score < 15
- For each support, provide evidence of overlooked strengths
- Boost supported scores by the affirmation amount (max +3 per affirmation)
6. Compute Final Scores
For each axis:
- Collect all expert votes (with challenges and affirmations applied)
- Apply weights from council definition
- Compute weighted median
- Clamp to 0-25
- Round DOWN (ties go to the lower score)
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 106 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A f6017e1f1a41
maturity-scorer is an agent published in the GitHub repository wd041216-bit/council-pilot (1 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 1,052 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.
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.
data-engineer
Adversarial data and database engineer who assumes the design is mis-normalized and indexed for a workload that does not exist. Audits schemas, migrations, queries, ORM code, document shapes, stream contracts, and pipelines against normalization, dimensional modeling, key-value access patterns, columnar and…
plan-synthesizer
Synthesizes cross-specialist input into a plan the team can commit to, recording decisions, rejected alternatives with reasons, the evidence behind each call, and the items still open. Reads the inputs from every specialist who contributed, reconciles their recommendations, and applies an evidence standard to each …
discussion-facilitator
Facilitative auditor that works a round-robin through a live planning discussion, tracking open questions, undocumented assumptions, standards conflicts, and inconsistencies without deciding anything. Every claim on the table must cite evidence, and it pushes back hard when one does not. Use when a planning…
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
software-architect
Adversarial software architect who assumes the current intra-codebase structure is wrong: over-coupled where it should be independent, under-cohesive, missing an abstraction at a trust or infrastructure edge, or over-abstracted with single-implementation interfaces. Synthesizes structural, behavioral, concurrency, and…