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 NITISH-R-G/hackerrank-orchestrate-skills --skill orchestrate-justification-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/NITISH-R-G/hackerrank-orchestrate-skillsWrote 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/nitish-r-g/hackerrank-orchestrate-skills/orchestrate-justification-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nitish-r-g/hackerrank-orchestrate-skills/orchestrate-justification-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nitish-r-g/hackerrank-orchestrate-skills/orchestrate-justification-quality/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/nitish-r-g/hackerrank-orchestrate-skills/orchestrate-justification-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nitish-r-g/hackerrank-orchestrate-skills/orchestrate-justification-quality.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 | $0.00079 | $0.01371 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00685 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00274 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00137 |
Grade A, and why
orchestrate-justification-quality 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 12d 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 — 89 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Orchestrate Justification Quality
Two published facts should shape how you treat this:
- The Orchestrate output rubric evaluates "whether agents provide sound justifications for decisions" — the CSV is not scored on verdicts alone.
- HackerRank's Chakra scoring engine is evidence-anchored: "every score traces back to a specific, verbatim moment in the transcript" and "nothing in the report is inferred beyond what's in the transcript."
Point 2 is about their interview scorer, not your CSV — but it reveals the evaluation philosophy of the organization designing your rubric. They score specific, traceable evidence and refuse to credit vague generalities. Write your agent's justifications for a reader with that disposition.
The Chakra rubric, read as a writing guide
Chakra's 4-point scale, translated into what it implies about output quality:
| Score | Chakra's criterion | What that means for a justification |
|---|---|---|
| 3 — Met | "clarity, ownership, structured reasoning, specific examples" | Names the specific evidence, states the decision rule, commits to the call |
| 2 — Partially met | "relevant evidence but lacking depth or specificity" | Gestures at the right reason without citing what actually drove it |
| 1 — Not met | "incorrect reasoning or only vague, theoretical responses" | Generic filler that could apply to any ticket |
| 0 — Not assessed | no relevant evidence exists | Empty or off-topic |
The gap between a 2 and a 3 is almost entirely specificity. That's the cheapest available improvement in the entire rubric.
What a weak justification looks like
"This ticket appears to require escalation based on its content and complexity."
Nothing here is wrong. Nothing here is evidence, either. It could be pasted onto any of the 29 tickets without modification — which is exactly the tell. If a justification is portable across cases, it justified nothing.
What a strong one looks like
"Escalated. The customer reports being charged twice for order #4471 on 2026-03-14. KB doc
billing-refunds-v3covers single-charge refunds but explicitly routes duplicate-charge cases to the billing team (§4.2) because they require ledger access the agent doesn't have. No KB document covers duplicate charges directly."
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 89 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A 2eecc6e39994
orchestrate-justification-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository NITISH-R-G/hackerrank-orchestrate-skills (3 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 1,371 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
general
Handle everyday conversation, answer questions, manage files, take notes, run scripts, and maintain persistent memory across sessions. Use when the user asks a general question, requests file operations, wants to brainstorm ideas, needs to-do tracking, asks you to remember something, or requests skill search and…
multi-bot
Coordinates responses between multiple GolemBot instances in a shared fleet. Use when the bot operates in a group chat with other bots, needs to decide whether to respond or pass, or must call a peer bot's API to fetch cross-domain data.
kb-guide
Search, read, create, and update knowledge base entries via MCP-connected KB tools. Use when the user asks to look up documentation, find existing articles, check if docs exist on a topic, create a new KB entry, update an existing document, or when domain questions should be answered from the knowledge base first.
ops
Content operations assistant — drafts blog posts, social media copy, and marketing materials, compiles data briefings, and tracks competitor activity. Use when the user asks to write a blog post, draft social media content, create marketing copy, generate a weekly report, compile operational metrics, update the…
escalation
Escalate unresolvable or sensitive requests to a human agent by recording an escalation entry. Use when the user asks to speak to a human, the bot cannot answer confidently, the request involves financial, legal, or security concerns, a safety issue is detected, or the user is frustrated after repeated failures.
code-review
Reviews code changes, pull requests, and diffs for correctness, security, performance, and style. Use when the user submits a PR for review, asks to review a diff or code snippet, or requests a quality check on recent changes.