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/JeremyDev87/codingbuddynpx agentmods add commands/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/evalWrote 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/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/eval)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/eval/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/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/eval.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 | $0.00000 | $0.03237 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.01295 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00647 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00324 |
Grade A, and why
eval 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 1mo 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 — 342 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
EVAL Mode
Purpose
Evaluate code quality and suggest improvements
Mode Availability
Standalone Mode (no MCP server)
This command works without the CodingBuddy MCP server. In standalone mode, you get:
- Mode detection and transition
- Code quality evaluation
- Anti-sycophancy analysis
- Devil's Advocate and Impact Radius analysis
MCP Enhanced Mode
With the CodingBuddy MCP server connected, you additionally get:
parse_modewith full context tracking- Specialist agent dispatch for comprehensive evaluation
- Contextual checklists (security, accessibility, performance)
- Cross-session context persistence
Activation
Invoke via /codingbuddy:eval (namespaced) or the EVAL keyword.
Legacy bare
/evalis deprecated. See Migration Guide.
This command activates EVAL mode for the CodingBuddy workflow.
Instructions
Important:
- EVAL mode is not automatic after ACT
- User must explicitly request EVAL by typing
EVAL - Default behavior after ACT: Return to PLAN (without evaluation)
- Use EVAL when you want iterative improvement and refinement
Trigger:
- Type
EVALafter completing ACT - Type
EVALUATE(also accepted) - Korean:
평가해or개선안 제시해
🔴 Agent Activation (STRICT):
- When EVAL is triggered, Code Reviewer Agent (loaded via parse_mode in MCP mode; defaults in standalone mode) MUST be automatically activated
- The Agent's evaluation framework and all mandatory requirements MUST be followed
- See agent documentation for complete evaluation framework
Purpose: Self-improvement through iterative refinement
What EVAL does (with Code Reviewer Agent):
-
Analyze Implementation (via Code Reviewer Agent)
- Review what was done in ACT
- Check adherence to project rules
- Verify quality standards met
- 🔴 Required: Follow Code Reviewer Agent's evaluation framework
-
Assess Quality (via Code Reviewer Agent mandatory perspectives)
- 🔴 Code quality (SOLID, DRY, complexity)
- Required: When evaluating code quality, reference Code Quality Specialist Agent (dispatched via parse_mode in MCP mode) modes.evaluation framework for SOLID principles, DRY, complexity analysis, and design patterns assessment
- 🔴 Architecture (layer boundaries, dependency direction, type safety)
- Required: When evaluating architecture, reference Architecture Specialist Agent (dispatched via parse_mode in MCP mode) framework for layer boundaries, dependency direction, and type safety assessment
- 🔴 Test coverage (90%+ goal)
- Required: When evaluating tests, reference Test Strategy Specialist Agent (dispatched via parse_mode in MCP mode) modes.evaluation framework for test coverage, TDD workflow, and test quality assessment
- 🔴 Performance (build size, execution optimization)
- Required: When evaluating performance, reference Performance Specialist Agent (dispatched via parse_mode in MCP mode) framework for build size, execution optimization, and performance metrics assessment
- 🔴 Security (XSS/CSRF, authentication/authorization)
- Required: When evaluating security, reference Security Specialist Agent (dispatched via parse_mode in MCP mode) framework for OAuth 2.0, JWT, CSRF/XSS protection assessment
- 🔴 Accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA compliance)
- Required: When evaluating accessibility, reference Accessibility Specialist Agent (dispatched via parse_mode in MCP mode) framework for WCAG 2.1 AA compliance verification
- 🔴 SEO (metadata, structured data)
- Required: When evaluating SEO, reference SEO Specialist Agent (dispatched via parse_mode in MCP mode) framework for metadata, structured data, and search engine optimization assessment
- 🔴 UI/UX Design (visual hierarchy, UX patterns)
- Required: When evaluating UI/UX design, reference UI/UX Designer Agent (dispatched via parse_mode in MCP mode) framework for visual hierarchy, UX laws, and interaction patterns assessment
- 🔴 Documentation Quality (documentation, cursor rules, AI prompts)
- Required: When evaluating documentation, cursor rules, or AI prompts, reference Documentation Specialist Agent (dispatched via parse_mode in MCP mode) modes.evaluation framework for clarity, completeness, consistency, actionability, structure, and references assessment
- 🔴 Code quality (SOLID, DRY, complexity)
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 342 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A b9b70f590b77
eval is a command published in the GitHub repository JeremyDev87/codingbuddy (31 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 3,237 tokens. 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 commands, from other repositories
merge
Finish a PR properly: every check green, every review addressed — human and bot — then merge and clean up.
pr
Prepare and open a pull request the senior way: gate, template, scrubbed, everything visible.
spec
Spec-first design: a gap-closing interview that produces a complete spec, with a quality controller that blocks until every section is answered and every question resolved.
plan
Turn an approved spec into an implementation plan an engineer with zero context could execute — with a quality controller that blocks placeholders and hollow tasks.
tdd
Test-driven development with tests that actually catch breaks: red before green, name the break each test catches, and the mutation check before done.
todo
The quality-gated task list: tasks with real descriptions, testable acceptance criteria, and evidence — a task only closes when the controller agrees it is done.