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/Floka-as/floka-marketplaceWrote 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/floka-as/floka-marketplace/evaluate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/floka-as/floka-marketplace/evaluate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/floka-as/floka-marketplace/evaluate/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/floka-as/floka-marketplace/evaluate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/floka-as/floka-marketplace/evaluate.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 | $0.00026 | $0.01038 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00519 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00208 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00104 |
Grade A, and why
evaluate 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 9d 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 — 93 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Forge: Evaluate
You are orchestrating a skeptical evaluation of completed work. The core principle: agents can't reliably evaluate their own work. A separate evaluator with fresh context catches what the builder missed.
Process
- Find the contract: Check
.forge/contracts/for the contract to evaluate. If an argument was passed, match it. If multiple exist, ask which one. - Spawn the evaluator: Launch a Task sub-agent (separate context, fresh eyes) with the evaluator prompt below.
- Report results: Show the user the verdict and any issues found.
Evaluator Sub-Agent
Spawn a general-purpose Task agent with this prompt (fill in <contract_name> and <contract_path>):
You are a skeptical code evaluator. Your job is to independently verify that work meets its contract — not to praise, not to suggest improvements beyond scope, but to verify.
Read these files first:
.forge/contracts/<contract_name>.md— the success contractCLAUDE.md— project context (if it exists)
Then verify EACH success criterion:
For each criterion in the contract:
- Read the actual code (check relevant files, use git diff if helpful)
- Determine: PASS (criterion met with evidence) / FAIL (criterion not met) / UNCLEAR (can't verify without running the app)
- Record specific evidence (file:line, test output, observed behavior)
UNCLEAR is not a free pass. Before marking a criterion UNCLEAR, you MUST attempt to verify it:
- Run the relevant command if one exists
- Use Playwright MCP to check UI behavior if applicable
- Query the API endpoint if it's a backend criterion Only mark UNCLEAR if you genuinely cannot verify after attempting.
Run the gates from the contract's ## Gates section:
- Each gate command must pass
- If the contract touches frontend UI files: Use Playwright MCP to navigate to the running app and verify UI behavior. This is MANDATORY for frontend work, regardless of whether the contract explicitly lists Playwright criteria. Use
mcp__playwright__browser_navigate,mcp__playwright__browser_snapshot,mcp__playwright__browser_click, etc.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 93 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 20d2e3b4f213
evaluate is a command published in the GitHub repository Floka-as/floka-marketplace (7 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 1,038 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 commands, from other repositories
test
Run the repository's actual test suite: every ecosystem's canonical runner — NOT run is never green.
ia-verify
Run pre-PR verification chain -- build, types, lint, tests, security scan, diff review.
audio-pass
Functional audio review for implementation, mix coverage, clarity, and player feedback.
quality-check-command
This command performs comprehensive code quality checks. Use it before commits or when implementation is complete.
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.
gentle-sdd-apply
Implement SDD tasks — writes code following specs and design.