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 EngDawood/emdash-claude-plugin --skill adversarial-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/EngDawood/emdash-claude-pluginWrote 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/engdawood/emdash-claude-plugin/adversarial-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/engdawood/emdash-claude-plugin/adversarial-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/engdawood/emdash-claude-plugin/adversarial-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/engdawood/emdash-claude-plugin/adversarial-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/engdawood/emdash-claude-plugin/adversarial-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 | $0.00071 | $0.01058 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00529 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00212 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00106 |
Grade A, and why
adversarial-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 10d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 123 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A b14256841a3e
adversarial-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository EngDawood/emdash-claude-plugin (3 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 1,058 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
review
Review one pull request for real bugs, regressions, and convention violations. Enumerate candidate issues across the whole diff, verify each against the code, then return structured line-anchored findings and a verdict. Read-only on GitHub; the orchestrator posts the review.
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
writing-emdash-docs
Write, revise, and review EmDash documentation for technical accuracy, useful structure, house style, and natural prose. Use when working on user documentation, guides, API reference pages, migration or upgrade guides, READMEs, contributor documentation, technical specifications, or release notes in the EmDash…
investigate
Investigate a single EmDash issue end to end -- classify, choose a repro path, reproduce, diagnose, verify, and (only on an explicit maintainer fix directive) fix and confirm. Every verdict carries its evidence.
fix
Implement diagnose's proposed fix when verify says bug, the cause is pinned, and a maintainer triggered a fix. Follow EmDash conventions, run focused checks, publish the candidate, and report the results accurately.
diagnose
Trace from a reproduced symptom to the source code that causes it. Pin the specific file and approximate line, rate confidence in the cause and clarity of the fix independently, and always propose a concrete fix.