PenguinHarness is a local-first platform in which multiple AI agents create, evaluate, optimize, and deploy agent applications. It is for people building AI software who want agents to generate applications and improve their own behavior through skills.
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 Prism-Shadow/penguin-harness --skill agent-optimizationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Prism-Shadow/penguin-harnessWrote 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/prism-shadow/penguin-harness/agent-optimization)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/prism-shadow/penguin-harness/agent-optimization"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/prism-shadow/penguin-harness/agent-optimization/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/prism-shadow/penguin-harness/agent-optimization"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/prism-shadow/penguin-harness/agent-optimization.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 12 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00022 | $0.02844 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.01138 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00569 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00284 |
Grade A, and why
agent-optimization 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 7d 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 — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agent Optimization
Improve one Test Agent through an evidence → hypothesis → Candidate → evaluation → accept or rollback loop. Use public Statements, scores, and Test Traces as black-box feedback. Delegate every evaluation to an agent-evaluation subagent; never run or score the Test Agent directly.
Before you start
If the request does not identify the Test Agent, frozen Benchmark, desired target score, positive Run count, and round limit, ask for the missing inputs. When they are already supplied, proceed without asking the user to restate them.
Goal and contract
Require an explicit Test Agent, a frozen Benchmark with a complete valid Formal Baseline, a desired target score, a positive runs value, and a positive round limit. The Benchmark's benchmark_config.toml must say status = "published"; a draft Benchmark is still being built and is not frozen, and a failed one never finished calibrating, so stop and explain in either case. runs is the number of Runs per Case for every Candidate in this optimization Session. Freeze it for the Session; do not infer it from benchmark_config.toml or the Formal Baseline. Read the evaluation (provider, model_id, thinking_level) from the complete Evaluation that matches the current Agent State; do not require the user to repeat it. An Evaluation without any part of this runtime is incomplete and cannot be used as a Reference. The top-level Session must provide run_subagent, and the current Agent must have the agent-evaluation Skill. If a prerequisite is missing, stop and explain what is needed. Do not create the missing Agent, Benchmark, or Baseline, and do not evaluate the Test Agent directly.
A Reference is the Agent State currently kept as best, together with its complete Evaluation on the frozen Benchmark.
Each round starts from the Reference and tests a bounded, general Candidate. Evaluate every Candidate on the frozen Case set with the requested runs count and the Reference evaluation runtime. The initial Formal Baseline has one Run per Case; do not rerun or backfill it to the requested count. Compare each Candidate's stored top-level average directly with the current Reference score even when their Run counts differ. Accept the Candidate only when the change is admissible, its Evaluation is complete and valid, and its top-level score is strictly higher than the Reference Evaluation's score. An accepted Candidate and its Evaluation become the next Reference; otherwise restore the previous Reference. Stop early when the Reference reaches the desired target; otherwise run no more than the requested number of complete valid Candidate rounds.
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.
- 7d ago Changed cc4f22fc34d1
- 9d ago Changed · +1 lines 193eede4bf83
- 10d ago Changed · +2 lines c393ed8148dc
- 1mo ago Changed · +3 lines 9dd2ec53be62
- 1mo ago Changed · -4 lines eff8cd7928b3
- 1mo ago First seen · 133 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A b1da9272dd5d
agent-optimization is a skill published in the GitHub repository Prism-Shadow/penguin-harness (2,862 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 2,844 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
verify-changes
Verify code changes by running the project's typecheck, build, lint, and targeted tests, then fix and re-run until clean. Use after editing any source file.
Skill: Verify skill
Skill for opinionated verification workflow for validating code changes.
install-verification
Use when verifying that a generated agent package can be installed, discovered by runtimes, and checked without private dependencies.
local-test
Build, run, and test IronClaw locally using Docker containers and Chrome MCP browser automation.
qa-review
QA review for code changes — test coverage analysis, edge case identification, test plan generation, regression detection, test health tracking over time.
review
Review code changes, pull requests, patches, or a scoped code area for actionable correctness, security, compatibility, and test risks with file and line evidence. Use for review or audit requests; do not use for general proofreading, feature implementation, or debugging a reported failure when the user wants a fix.