Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/avelikiy/great_ctonpx agentmods add commands/avelikiy/great_cto/prompt-evolveWrote 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/commands/avelikiy/great_cto/prompt-evolve)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/avelikiy/great_cto/prompt-evolve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/avelikiy/great_cto/prompt-evolve/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/commands/avelikiy/great_cto/prompt-evolve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/avelikiy/great_cto/prompt-evolve.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 | $0.01605 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00803 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00321 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00161 |
Grade A, and why
prompt-evolve scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 137 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the great_cto /prompt-evolve command — the closed self-improvement loop.
Today continuous-learner writes a lesson and crystallize can rewrite a prompt, but
nothing re-runs the evals to verify the change before it ships. This command closes
that loop, porting SIA's run_generation cycle (hexo-ai/sia):
lesson → candidate prompt (gen N+1) → holdout evals → promotion gate → PROMOTE | REJECT
A candidate prompt may only ship if it does not regress on the held-out eval split.
Step 1 — Parse args & locate the agent
AGENT="${ARGUMENTS%% *}"
LESSON=$(echo "$ARGUMENTS" | sed -n 's/.*--lesson \(.*\)/\1/p' | sed 's/^"//; s/"$//')
[ -z "$AGENT" ] && echo "Usage: /prompt-evolve <agent-name> [--lesson \"text\"]" && exit 1
AGENT_FILE="agents/${AGENT}.md"
[ ! -f "$AGENT_FILE" ] && echo "ERROR: agent not found: $AGENT" && exit 1
GEN=$(( $(node scripts/prompt-evolve.mjs log --agent "$AGENT" 2>/dev/null | grep -c '^.*gen ') + 1 ))
echo "Evolving $AGENT → generation $GEN"
If no --lesson was given, read the most recent un-applied lesson for this agent from
.great_cto/lessons.md (the continuous-learner output).
Step 2 — Baseline holdout run (current prompt)
export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=... # required for the live runner
node tests/eval/runner.mjs --split holdout
cp tests/eval/results.jsonl tests/eval/baseline.holdout.jsonl
If there are no holdout cases yet for this agent's EVAL files, first run
/gen-evals <agent> (it now produces a ## Holdout cases section), then re-run Step 2.
Step 3 — Candidate prompt (delegate to ai-prompt-architect)
First, collect what actually failed. The lesson is one sentence of prose; the eval history holds, per case, the judge's reason and the agent's own words:
node scripts/lib/failure-digest.mjs "$AGENT" --split holdout --samples 3
Four answers, and only one of them is a reason to rewrite anything:
| State | What it means | What to do |
|---|---|---|
failures |
the cases, the judge's reason, the agent's response | pass all of it to Step 3 |
clean |
measured, nothing failing | stop — there is nothing to fix, and a rewrite with no failure to point at is a guess |
unmeasured |
no run at this shape — not the same as passing | run /gen-evals <agent>, then Step 2 |
unreadable |
the history could not be read | fix that first; a digest built on "I could not look" is worse than none |
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 137 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 5e946781aadf
prompt-evolve is a command published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (89 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 1,605 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
bugfix
TDD-driven bugfix workflow: tester writes failing test (RED) → developer fixes (GREEN) → developer refactors (REFACTOR) → reviewer validates. Accepts issue number, description, or both. Auto-creates PR unless --no-pr flag is passed.
fec-plan
Unified front-end planning entrance - implementation/architecture plan or testing strategy. The implementation path is taken by default; when the user clearly wants test plan, coverage matrix, test layering, risk-to-test, etc., the complete test strategy is output.
develop
Implement skill development issues with TDD-governed workflow.
fec-tdd
Use front-end TDD workflow to implement functions, fix bugs, or refactor logic: first write failing tests, then implement minimal code, and then refactor.
bug
Reproduce then TDD-fix a ready-for-agent bug ticket in this checkout. Web bugs get a browser repro first.
tdd
Test-driven development — write tests first, then implement minimal code to pass. Enforces red-green-refactor cycle with coverage targets.