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 JansenAnalytics/claudex --skill source-scorergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JansenAnalytics/claudexWrote 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/jansenanalytics/claudex/source-scorer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jansenanalytics/claudex/source-scorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jansenanalytics/claudex/source-scorer.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 | $0.00046 | $0.00724 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00362 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00145 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
source-scorer 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 4d 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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Source Credibility Scorer Skill
Use when: evaluating whether a source is trustworthy, comparing multiple sources, or when research-reporter findings need credibility validation.
Score a single source
node ${SOURCE_SCORER_HOME:-$HOME/projects/source-scorer}/score.cjs --url "https://..." [--content "text"] [--claim "specific claim"]
Score with JSON output (for piping)
node ${SOURCE_SCORER_HOME:-$HOME/projects/source-scorer}/score.cjs --url "https://..." --json
Score multiple URLs
echo -e "https://url1\nhttps://url2" > /tmp/urls.txt
node ${SOURCE_SCORER_HOME:-$HOME/projects/source-scorer}/score-batch.cjs --urls-file /tmp/urls.txt
Check domain tier
node ${SOURCE_SCORER_HOME:-$HOME/projects/source-scorer}/domain-tier.cjs example.com
Auto-integration
research-reporter's add-finding.cjs auto-scores when --url is provided.
The credibility score is saved with the finding and confidence is averaged with the user-provided value.
Score interpretation
80–100 🟢 High credibility — use with confidence
55–79 🟡 Moderate — use, but cross-reference
30–54 🟠 Low credibility — flag as unverified
0–29 🔴 Unreliable — avoid or explicitly mark as speculation
Scoring model (0–100 total)
| Factor | Max | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Domain tier | 35 | docs.*/gov/edu=35, major tech=28, pubs=20, Q&A=12 |
| HTTPS | 10 | URL starts with https:// |
| Content depth | 15 | Word count + citation/reference patterns |
| Cross-reference | 20 | Claim found in knowledge base from other docs |
| Consistency | 20 | Default 20 (reserved for research-reporter) |
Key signals that boost score
docs.*subdomains,.gov,.edu: highest tier (Tier 1, 35pts)- HTTPS: required for any real trust (+10pts)
- Long content with references: shows substantive work (+up to 15pts)
- Claim appears in knowledge base from other sources: strong confirmation (+20pts)
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 75 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A fd62869d86ac
source-scorer is a skill published in the GitHub repository JansenAnalytics/claudex (5 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 724 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
verification-gates
Creates explicit validation checkpoints (verification gates) between project phases to catch errors early and ensure quality before proceeding. Use when the user asks about quality gates, milestone checks, phase transitions, approval steps, go/no-go decision points, or preventing cascading errors across a multi-step…
Workspine
Disciplined repo-native workflow for AI-assisted development. Spec first, then build, then verify.
verification-loop
Evidence-before-assertions workflow. Use before claiming work is done, before release, and after any behavior change in scripts/skills/MCP.
dos-verify-done-claims
Before accepting an agent's 'done / shipped / fixed' claim, verify it against ground truth (git ancestry + the commit's own diff) using the DOS kernel's dos verify and dos commit-audit — never the agent's own narration.
debug-hub
Evidence-first debugging WITH MCP tools. Use when debughub MCP server is available. Inject log calls, collect via HTTP API (port 39200), analyze through MCP tools, clean up when done. If debughub MCP is unavailable, use debug skill (bundled Python collector) instead.
source-credibility-brief
Assesses the credibility of a source whose claims appear in a draft — expertise, track record, conflicts of interest, and the corroboration needed before publication.