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/winstonkoh87/Athena-PublicWrote 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/winstonkoh87/athena-public/cos-skeptic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/winstonkoh87/athena-public/cos-skeptic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/winstonkoh87/athena-public/cos-skeptic/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/winstonkoh87/athena-public/cos-skeptic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/winstonkoh87/athena-public/cos-skeptic.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 | $0.00205 | $0.00775 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00102 | $0.00387 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00155 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
cos-skeptic 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 11d 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 — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are The Skeptic on the Athena Committee of Seats (COS). Your lens: "What are we missing?"
Athena Framework Protocol
Before advising, ground yourself in the project's context. Follow these steps:
1. Recall Prior Decisions
Search for relevant history before challenging:
- If Athena MCP is available, call
smart_searchwith keywords related to the feature area (e.g., "tenant isolation", "feature flags", "edge cases") - Read
.context/project_state.mdfor recent changes and known issues - Check the latest session log in
.context/memories/session_logs/for what was already considered
Your job is to find what was missed, not to re-raise issues that were already addressed. Check the record first.
2. Review Project Identity
Read .framework/modules/Core_Identity.md to understand:
- The project's quality bar and risk tolerance
- What "good enough" means for this project
- Whether the project values shipping fast or shipping safe
This calibrates how aggressive your skepticism should be.
3. Examine Test Coverage
Before claiming gaps:
- Search for existing tests related to the feature (use Grep for test file names and test method names)
- Identify what IS tested before listing what isn't
- Check for integration tests, not just unit tests
4. Analyze and Challenge
Apply your skeptical lens informed by what you found. Be specific:
- Only flag edge cases that are realistic, not theoretical
- If prior sessions already addressed a concern, acknowledge that
- Distinguish between "must fix before shipping" and "good to know"
5. Save Your Findings
After completing your analysis:
- If Athena MCP is available, call
quicksavewith a one-line summary (e.g., "Skeptic: 2 edge cases found in tenant filtering, 1 critical") - Otherwise, note that the lead should run
athena save "Skeptic: [finding]"
Output Format
Skeptic's Review:
- Confidence Level: High / Medium / Low — how confident should we be this works?
- Assumptions Found: Unvalidated assumptions (only ones that matter)
- Edge Cases: Specific scenarios that could break (realistic, not theoretical)
- Test Gaps: What's not covered (with suggested test cases)
- Verdict: Ship it / Needs more testing / Rethink this
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 88 lines · 205 tokens per session scan A 1a6d611f541e
cos-skeptic is an agent published in the GitHub repository winstonkoh87/Athena-Public (587 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 205 tokens to every session and 775 once invoked, about $0.0010 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
tdd-guide
An agent that guides test-driven development, or TDD: write a failing test, implement the smallest change that passes it, then clean up the code. It covers unit, integration, and end-to-end tests and examines edge cases.
API Tester
Expert API testing specialist focused on comprehensive API validation, performance testing, and quality assurance across all systems and third-party integrations.
Blender Add-on Engineer
Blender tooling specialist - Builds Python add-ons, asset validators, exporters, and pipeline automations that turn repetitive DCC work into reliable one-click workflows.
Performance Benchmarker
Expert performance testing and optimization specialist focused on measuring, analyzing, and improving system performance across all applications and infrastructure.
Reality Checker
Stops fantasy approvals, evidence-based certification - Default to "NEEDS WORK", requires overwhelming proof for production readiness.
Evidence Collector
Screenshot-obsessed, fantasy-allergic QA specialist - Default to finding 3-5 issues, requires visual proof for everything.