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 odarino/haren --skill evaluategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/odarino/harenWrote 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/odarino/haren/evaluate)<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.
<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>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 | $0.00009 | $0.00800 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00320 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00160 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00080 |
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.
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
- 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.
- Read the code in target repo(s) for the feature being evaluated
- Read progress.json to confirm feature is in "evaluating" status
- Check previous review attempts if they exist (task-{N}-{slug}-review.md)
Evaluation
Run through each criterion:
- Functionality: Does the code do what the spec says?
- Test each user story / acceptance criterion
- Check edge cases mentioned in the spec
- Completeness: Are all spec requirements addressed?
- Cross-reference spec checklist against implementation
- Correctness: Do tests pass?
- Run the test suite
- Check test coverage for the feature
- 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.mdandtask-{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}
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 100 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 2539e810c323
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.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
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…
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…
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…