evaluate

A framework for judging tools, articles, videos, technologies, and competitors against the Genesis system's design and roadmap. It aims to produce decisions and next steps, not just summaries.

In plain words
What is it for?
Useful for technology reviews, competitive analysis, source evaluation, and strategic planning.
Why use it?
It gives a structured way to assess whether outside developments fit the system and where they fall short.

Command for Claude Code

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/wingedguardian/genesis-agi/evaluate
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI

Made for: Claude Code.

Per session 41 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,353 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00041 $0.01353
Opus 5 $0.00020 $0.00677
Sonnet 5 $0.00008 $0.00271
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00135

Measured 3d ago against content hash 1e7683fbe96e, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 3d 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.

.claude/commands/evaluate.md · 160 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 160 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Technology & Intelligence Evaluation Framework

Purpose

Conduct rigorous, balanced evaluation of external technologies, tools, articles, and competitive developments against Genesis's architecture, design philosophy, and build roadmap. Produce actionable findings — not summaries.

Core Principle

Give the full picture. Do not undersell, do not be sycophantic. Think about how it could help, how it can't, and how maybe it /could/. Every finding gets the four-lens treatment before any conclusions are drawn.

Phase 1: Source Acquisition

Parallel Research

Fetch all sources simultaneously. Never serialize independent lookups.

Obstacle Exhaustion

When a source is inaccessible, exhaust all autonomous options before involving the user:

  1. Try the primary tool (WebFetch, scrape, direct access)
  2. Try alternative tools in the toolkit (Firecrawl, other MCP tools)
  3. Route to a different model/service that CAN access the content type:
    • YouTube video → Gemini API (native YouTube URL support)
    • Paywalled article → Firecrawl (JS rendering, paywall bypass)
    • Authenticated service → check for specialized MCP tools
  4. Try creative workarounds (transcript APIs, metadata services, cached versions)
  5. Only then ask the user — with specific options, not "what was it about?"

Proactive Capability Surfacing

Even when a workaround succeeds, note the faster/better path for later. Example: "Resolved via Gemini, but authorizing Firecrawl would handle this and more."

Phase 2: Four-Lens Evaluation

Evaluate EVERY finding through all four lenses before drawing conclusions. Do not skip lenses or collapse them.

Lens 1: How It Helps

  • Direct applicability to Genesis architecture, current phase, or planned phases
  • Ready-to-use tools, libraries, or integrations
  • Validated patterns that confirm our design decisions

Lens 2: How It Doesn't Help

  • Platform incompatibilities (OS, runtime, deployment model)
  • Architectural misalignment with Genesis design philosophy
  • Scope mismatch (solves a problem we don't have)
  • Maturity or reliability concerns

Read the full file on GitHub · 160 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 3d ago First seen · 160 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 1e7683fbe96e

Subscribe to this mod's changes

evaluate is a command published in the GitHub repository WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI (93 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 1,353 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.