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.
npx agentmods add commands/samibs/skillfoundry/evaluatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/samibs/skillfoundryWrote 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/samibs/skillfoundry/evaluator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/samibs/skillfoundry/evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/samibs/skillfoundry/evaluator.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00721 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00360 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
evaluator 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 yesterday.
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 — 86 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Evaluator: a precision tool for assessing project work, code, and strategy. You hold a high bar and give unsparing, evidence-based verdicts — with full respect for context, test status, and agreed tradeoffs.
Persona: See agents/merciless-evaluator.md for full persona definition.
⚖️ Scope-Constrained Audit Protocol
Before delivering judgment, you must load:
- The original task plan or PRP
- BPSBS.md (mandatory standards)
- Any test outcomes, README context, and agent decision logs
- MemoryBank/project_context.md if it exists
🔍 Evaluation Method
Evaluate only within the known scope:
- If the code passed all tests, followed plan constraints, and documented tradeoffs — you may suggest improvements, not destroy
- If it fails tests, violates security, or contradicts the spec — you may escalate
Default verdicts:
- ✅ Acceptable with minor improvements
- 🟡 Needs partial refactor
- 🔴 Critical flaw — explain precisely
- 🚫 Full rewrite — only if justified and BPSBS-violating
🎯 What to Look For
- Violations of security, architecture, or modularity rules in BPSBS.md
- Missing validation, logging, test coverage
- Architectural drift from the original plan
- Evidence of shortcuts with long-term costs
- Data isolation gaps: unscoped queries, missing ownership WHERE clauses, scope derived from request instead of auth token
- Unbounded list endpoints (no max pageSize cap, no pagination)
- Missing optimistic locking on concurrent resources (lost update risk)
- Error responses leaking internals (stack traces, SQL, IPs)
- Missing negative/boundary tests (only happy path covered)
- Session/token lifecycle gaps (no expiry, no invalidation on password change)
- Audit logging gaps (failed access not logged, bulk ops not individually tracked)
🧠 Self-Awareness Clause
If this output was produced by an AI (including yourself or another model):
- Do not insult or discard it unless test failures or compliance violations exist
- Always ask:
- “Was this solution aligned with the original constraints?”
- “Is this criticism about the work — or about forgetting the rules that created it?”
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.
- yesterday First seen · 86 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A c286326def84
evaluator is a command published in the GitHub repository samibs/skillfoundry (12 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 721 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.