evaluate

evaluate is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from odarino/haren. It costs 9 tokens per session (800 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A review skill that checks whether an implementation matches its written specification. It also checks tests, edge cases, completeness, and compatibility with other parts of the project.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review completed features against user stories, acceptance criteria, interface agreements, test results, and coverage.
Why use it?
It provides an independent check that a feature was built correctly and that important requirements were not missed.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one. Also seen: agent in frontmatter.

Good fit Use it to review completed features against user stories, acceptance criteria, interface agreements, test results, and coverage.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/odarino/haren/evaluate
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add odarino/haren --skill evaluate
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/odarino/haren

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for evaluate

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/odarino/haren/evaluate/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/odarino/haren/evaluate)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/odarino/haren/evaluate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/odarino/haren/evaluate/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for evaluate

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/odarino/haren/evaluate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/odarino/haren/evaluate.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 9 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 800 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00009 $0.00800
Opus 5.5 $0.00004 $0.00320
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00002 $0.00160
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00080

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 2539e810c323, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

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 1mo 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.

content/skills/evaluate/SKILL.md · 100 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Evaluate

Independently verify that a feature implementation meets its spec.

Process

  1. Read the spec from the active plan path (see skill.md Plan Paths convention). If iterations enabled, also check the master plan path for full module context.
  2. Read the code in target repo(s) for the feature being evaluated
  3. Read progress.json to confirm feature is in "evaluating" status
  4. Check previous review attempts if they exist (task-{N}-{slug}-review.md)

Evaluation

Run through each criterion:

  1. Functionality: Does the code do what the spec says?
    • Test each user story / acceptance criterion
    • Check edge cases mentioned in the spec
  2. Completeness: Are all spec requirements addressed?
    • Cross-reference spec checklist against implementation
  3. Correctness: Do tests pass?
    • Run the test suite
    • Check test coverage for the feature
  4. Integration: Does it work with module interfaces?
    • Verify exposed interfaces match the spec's interface contracts

Output

Each task gets its own evaluation files using a per-task naming convention:

  • Review: artifacts/06-evaluation/{module}/task-{N}-{slug}-review.md
  • Test report: artifacts/06-evaluation/{module}/task-{N}-{slug}-test-report.md

Naming Convention

  • Format: task-{number}-{slug}-review.md and task-{number}-{slug}-test-report.md
  • The slug matches the feature key in progress.json
  • Examples: task-1-scaffold-review.md, task-2-sync-skills-api-review.md
  • This allows parallel evaluation with no conflicts

Review Content

Use the review template (templates/review.md) with the following structure:

If iterations are enabled (check manifest.yaml for iterations block), include the iteration field in the review frontmatter with the value of currentIteration from progress.json. If not enabled, omit it.

# Review: {module} — Task {N}: {feature name}

**Verdict:** pass | fail
**Attempt:** {1|2|3}
**Date:** {date}
**Iteration:** {N} ← only if iterations enabled

## Summary
{brief assessment}

## Criteria
| Criterion | Result | Detail |
|-----------|--------|--------|
| Functionality | pass/fail | {detail} |
| Completeness | pass/fail | {detail} |
| Correctness | pass/fail | {detail} |
| Integration | pass/fail | {detail} |

## Issues
{If fail — numbered list with file:line, description, suggested fix}

## Test Report
{Test execution summary and coverage}

Read the full file on GitHub · 100 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 1mo ago First seen · 100 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 2539e810c323

Subscribe to this mod's changes

evaluate is a skill published in the GitHub repository odarino/haren (11 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 800 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. 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.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

autoreview

Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.

openclaw/clawhub · 17 tokens

omh-code-review

This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).

rlaope/oh-my-hermes · 48 tokens

revdiff-plan

Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…

umputun/revdiff · 84 tokens

re0-merge

Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…

LilMGenius/paperthin · 70 tokens

explore-unknowns

Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…

dzhng/skills · 162 tokens

asplos-writing-style

Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills · 65 tokens