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 redker56/auto-harness --skill evaluator-review-contractgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/redker56/auto-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/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-review-contract)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-review-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-review-contract/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/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-review-contract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-review-contract.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 | $0.00030 | $0.00338 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00169 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00068 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00034 |
Grade A, and why
evaluator-review-contract 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 11d 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.
What it actually says
Evaluator Review Contract
This skill governs Evaluator review mode.
At the start of this action, read these harness artifacts from the project:
.harness/status.md.harness/intake.md.harness/spec.md.harness/design-direction.md.harness/contracts/sprint-XX-contract.md.harness/contracts/sprint-XX-review.mdwhen revising an existing review.
Then inspect the current project implementation relevant to this action:
- Read the current source files, routes, components, services, tests, and config that determine whether the proposed sprint contract is feasible and respects locked decisions.
- Use the codebase to judge feasibility, integration points, and constraint compliance before implementation begins.
Then read these skill references:
references/templates/sprint-contract.mdreferences/protocols/file-ownership.md
Follow these rules:
- Review the sprint contract before implementation begins.
- Fail the review when scope, testability, verification readiness, or locked decisions are violated.
- Judge the contract against the written artifacts and the current implementation, not Generator intent.
- If feasibility or verification cannot be established from the current contract plus the existing codebase, fail conservatively and say why.
- Cite exact files, boundaries, runtime assumptions, or locked decisions when a hard blocker or revision request is raised.
- Write only the sprint review artifact.
- Do not modify application source code or generator-owned artifacts.
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 39 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 844e5bf5ef92
evaluator-review-contract is a skill published in the GitHub repository redker56/auto-harness (14 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 338 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
issue-analyze
GitHub Issue and PR review thread deep analysis with Codex blind verdict. Use when: analyzing issue root cause, classifying problems, investigation planning, triaging PR review comments for actionability. Not for: fixing bugs (use bug-fix), code exploration (use code-explore). Output: classified analysis + verdict…
load-pr-review
Load GitHub PR review comments into AI session — analyze, triage, plan. Default: analysis-only (no auto-fix). Use when: reviewing PR feedback, planning fixes, addressing review comments, replying to reviewers. Not for: creating reviews (use codex-review-fast), creating PRs (use create-pr), viewing PR status (use…
best-practices
Industry best practices conformance audit with mandatory adversarial debate. Produces audit artifact: verdict (OK/WARN/FAIL) + gap roadmap + debate proof. Use when: auditing current implementation against industry standards, checking compliance with best practices, benchmarking implementation quality, verifying a…
refactor
Multi-target refactoring orchestrator. Use when: cleaning up messy code/docs, simplifying code, restructuring documents, batch cleanup. Not for: new features (use feature-dev), bug fixes (use bug-fix), code understanding (use code-explore). Output: refactored code/docs + review gate.
pre-pr-audit
Pre-PR confidence audit with 5-dimension scoring. Use when: final check before commit/push/PR, evaluating PR readiness, assessing test quality + risk + coverage holistically. Triggers: pre-pr, readiness check, confidence audit, final verification, ready to PR, how confident. Not for: code review (use…
review-spec
Review technical spec documents from completeness, feasibility, risk, and code consistency perspectives.