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 skills/bromso/metapowers/evaluatenpx skills add bromso/metapowers --skill evaluategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bromso/metapowersWrote 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/bromso/metapowers/evaluate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bromso/metapowers/evaluate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bromso/metapowers/evaluate.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 | $0.00011 | $0.00561 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00280 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00112 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
evaluate scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 3d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 51 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Evaluate
Evaluate "$ARGUMENTS" for accessibility issues. Run automated and manual checks, discover barriers, and map each issue to specific WCAG success criteria.
Prerequisites
Read .metapowers/accessibility/$ARGUMENTS/01-scope.md. If this file does not exist, tell the user:
Phase 1 (Scope) has not been completed for "$ARGUMENTS". Run
/accessibility:scope $ARGUMENTSfirst, or use--skip-checksto bypass.
If --skip-checks is present in $ARGUMENTS, skip this check and log to .metapowers/accessibility/$ARGUMENTS/skip-log.md.
Process
-
Read context files:
- Read
.metapowers/accessibility/$ARGUMENTS/01-scope.mdfor audit scope and target pages - Read
plugins/accessibility/shared/wcag-21-aa-criteria.mdfor the full criteria reference
- Read
-
Automated evaluation:
- Read the source code of the target pages/components
- Check for: missing alt text, missing form labels, heading hierarchy violations, missing ARIA attributes, color contrast issues, missing lang attribute, keyboard trap risks
-
Manual evaluation:
- Trace keyboard navigation flow — can all interactive elements be reached and operated?
- Check focus visibility — is focus indicator visible on every interactive element?
- Check reading order — does DOM order match visual order?
- Check form error handling — are errors identified and described in text?
- Check dynamic content — are updates announced via ARIA live regions?
-
Map each issue to WCAG criteria:
- For each issue found, identify the specific WCAG success criterion violated
- Classify severity: Critical (blocks access), Major (significant barrier), Minor (inconvenience)
- Note the location (file, line, component)
-
Write the artifact to
.metapowers/accessibility/$ARGUMENTS/02-evaluate.mdwith sections:- Issues Found — each issue with WCAG mapping, severity, location
- Conformance Status — per-principle pass/fail summary
- Critical Barriers — issues that completely block access
- Positive Findings — what's already working well
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 51 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A de0de2ab0513
evaluate is a skill published in the GitHub repository bromso/metapowers (1 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 561 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
openspec-verify-change
Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving.
writing
将共享历史中的已验证事实和计算结果整理成符合受众、格式与长度约束的成稿。.
change
Track and inspect graph changes, diffs, temporal updates, and the impact of new data on Semantica knowledge graphs.
coding
编写并运行 Python 代码，验证脚本逻辑和输出。.
gsd-audit-milestone
Audit milestone completion against original intent before archiving.
kayba-stage-7-fixer
Implement the approved fixes from the action plan and log all changes. Trigger when the user says "run stage 7", "implement fixes", "apply action plan", or when invoked by the kayba-pipeline orchestrator. Requires eval/actionplan.md to exist.