Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add CBirkbeck/mathlib-quality/plugin install mathlib-qualityWrote 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/cbirkbeck/mathlib-quality/redteam)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/cbirkbeck/mathlib-quality/redteam"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cbirkbeck/mathlib-quality/redteam/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/cbirkbeck/mathlib-quality/redteam"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cbirkbeck/mathlib-quality/redteam.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 | $0.00111 | $0.05700 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00044 | $0.02280 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.01140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00570 |
Grade A, and why
redteam 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 19d 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 — 359 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/redteam — the Tau Ceti red team
The red team finds what Tau Ceti's review let through, and fixes it. It is adversarial and exhaustive. Every definition and statement is presumed wrong until you have tried to break it and failed; every declaration gets a recorded verdict in every category; nothing is too small to record.
The red team wins every time it confirms a big problem — a CRITICAL or MAJOR finding
whose evidence compiles — and loses every time one of its claims is refuted. Both go on
the scoreboard (scripts/redteam.py tally), so the way to win is to be right, not loud.
Everything on main was reviewed and approved, so every finding is also a miss by one of
TauCetiReview's rubrics. Recording which rubric missed it, and the error's pattern, is how
the hunt turns into better rubrics (/redteam report).
REQUIRED: the checklist, evidence recipes, Astra prompts and fix playbook are in
references/tauceti-redteam.md. Read it before your first hunt.
The round
Modelled on /taupr: a round does exactly one unit of work — the first that applies.
R0 BOARD every round, first: read our red-team PRs, sync the ledger, print the score
R1 REBASE a red-team PR has a genuine TauCeti/ conflict
R2 FIX-CI a red-team PR has `build` red
R3 FIX a red-team PR has review findings: fix them, or contest in the rubric thread
R4 REVIEW a red-team PR is green, and unreviewed ≥ 1h after its build → tauceti-review --post
R5 SHIP fewer than --max-open (default 3) of this agent's PRs are open, and the ledger
holds a confirmed finding with no PR: fix the worst one and open its PR
R6 HUNT otherwise — unless --max-queue (default 10) topics of confirmed findings already
wait for a PR — claim the next file and audit it down to the last declaration
IDLE none of the above
- Maintenance outranks new work, so PRs in flight get merged instead of piling up.
- The PR cap is load-bearing. A building PR and a green PR inside its first hour both look like nothing to do; uncapped, a ten-minute loop opens a PR every tick. At the cap the round hunts instead of shipping: finding problems is the red team's main job and needs no PR slot. Never open "just one more" because the fixes are small or the pipeline looks quick.
- The queue cap stops hunting when shipping has fallen too far behind, so the backlog of
confirmed-but-unfixed findings stays small enough to ship before
mainmoves under it. It counts topics — the PRs the backlog would make (tallyprints both) — since one file's twenty nits are one PR, not twenty. - A GitHub API failure aborts the round. No data means stop, never "nothing to do".
- Merging, closing and de-duplicating belong to Tau Ceti's CI, never to this loop.
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.
- 19d ago First seen · 359 lines · 111 tokens per session scan A 71d2182a6063
redteam is a command published in the GitHub repository CBirkbeck/mathlib-quality (35 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 111 tokens to every session and 5,700 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-29.
Other commands, from other repositories
pr-enhance
Command "pr-enhance" from ruvnet/ruflo, covering pr-enhance, usage, options, examples and enhance pr.
audio-pass
Functional audio review for implementation, mix coverage, clarity, and player feedback.
test-value-review
Use when a diff adds or changes test files, when a PR claims coverage for config, CI workflows, templates, or HTML output, or when tests look written only to satisfy a "must have tests" rule; not for Playwright selector or performance hygiene (use /playwright-review).
auditar-refactor
Invoca refactor-safety-auditor — gate canônico antes de qualquer refactor. Coleta evidências (linhas, contrato externo, coverage, mutation) e retorna veredito GO/BLOCK/WARN/GO-OVERRIDE.
quality-check-command
This command performs comprehensive code quality checks. Use it before commits or when implementation is complete.
bug-check
Run automated tests and build checks first, then agent code review. For each bug found, propose or document a regression test.