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/sethdford/claude-skills/evaluate-technologygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sethdford/claude-skillsWrote 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/sethdford/claude-skills/evaluate-technology)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/sethdford/claude-skills/evaluate-technology"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/sethdford/claude-skills/evaluate-technology.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 5.1 | $0.00011 | $0.00084 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00042 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00017 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00008 |
Grade A, and why
evaluate-technology 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 6d 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.
What it actually says
Evaluate Technology
- Use
technology-radarto define assessment criteria - Use
build-vs-buyto compare custom vs using technology - Use
proof-of-concept-planto design POC if needed - Position on radar and create report
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 12 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A a69f71d230c9
evaluate-technology is a command published in the GitHub repository sethdford/claude-skills (38 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 84 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
verify
Run the full verification suite (build, type-check, tests, lint) via a fresh-context verification-runner subagent; reports evidence paths. Read-only by default; opt-in '--fix' runs a bounded auto-fix loop (max 2 cycles). Use before marking featurelist.json status as 'pass'.
cf-run
Run the context-firewall workflow: split inputs, invoke FileWorkers, aggregate into SubResult.v1.
devloop
启动或恢复 devloop 工作流（创建分支 → 修复 → 提交 → PR → 等待 AI 审查 → 应用评论 → 重复）。.
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.