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 skills add 45ck/skill-harness --skill agent-run-evidence-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/45ck/skill-harnessWrote 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/skills/45ck/skill-harness/agent-run-evidence-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/45ck/skill-harness/agent-run-evidence-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/45ck/skill-harness/agent-run-evidence-reviewer/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/skills/45ck/skill-harness/agent-run-evidence-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/45ck/skill-harness/agent-run-evidence-reviewer.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 | $0.00033 | $0.00259 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00130 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00052 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00026 |
Grade A, and why
agent-run-evidence-reviewer 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 11d 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
Agent Run Evidence Reviewer
Use this skill before accepting that an agent run worked, that a workflow improved, or that a learning should be made durable.
Evidence Checks
- The run has a task or issue id.
- The agent role and tool boundaries are clear.
- Changed files, commands, tests, and validators are named.
- Failures and retries are visible, not edited out.
- Claims are tied to concrete evidence.
- Generated artifacts point back to source.
- Sensitive traces are excluded or redacted.
- Follow-up work is filed instead of hidden in prose.
Verdicts
accept: evidence supports the resultneeds-gate: result may be correct but validation is missingneeds-redaction: evidence is useful but unsafe to store or shareneeds-follow-up: result is partial and requires tracked workreject: evidence contradicts the result or is too weak
Output
Verdict
Evidence Present
Missing Gates
Redaction Needs
Follow-Up Issues
Durable Learning Decision
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 37 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A ee4ec84357ce
agent-run-evidence-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository 45ck/skill-harness (15 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 259 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
do-it-architecture
Use when authority, ownership, contracts, dependency boundaries, migration, recovery, or structural deletion can change a design.
do-it-code-quality
Use when designing, changing, or debugging code to locate causal ownership and close the affected behavior.
do-it-core
Use when repository work needs a shared baseline for intent, facts, causal changes, and honest evidence.
do-it-decide
Use when uncertainty about a choice, plan, dependency, or handoff could materially change what gets built.
do-it-review
Use to assess requirements and implementation quality independently, or to resolve a batch of review findings.
do-it-skill-authoring
Use when creating or revising a do-it skill so its trigger and unique professional judgment are useful without prescribing ceremony.