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-write-qagit 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-write-qa)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-write-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-write-qa/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-write-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-write-qa.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 | $0.00032 | $0.00639 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00256 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00128 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
evaluator-write-qa 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.
What it actually says
Evaluator Write QA
This skill governs Evaluator qa mode and the sprint QA report.
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/runtime.md.harness/contracts/sprint-XX-contract.md.harness/contracts/sprint-XX-review.mdwhen a review exists for the sprint..harness/qa/sprint-XX-self-check.mdwhen Generator produced a self-check..harness/qa/sprint-XX-qa-report.mdwhen rewriting the QA report.
Then inspect the current project implementation relevant to this action:
- Read the source files, routes, components, services, tests, and config that implement the sprint you are validating.
- Use running-app evidence first, and use the codebase to explain, verify, or localize what you observe.
Then read these skill references:
references/protocols/file-ownership.mdreferences/templates/qa-report.mdreferences/rubrics/default-grading.mdreferences/rubrics/product-depth.mdreferences/rubrics/bug-severity.mdreferences/rubrics/visual-design.mdreferences/rubrics/code-quality.md
Follow these rules:
- Before issuing PASS or FAIL, complete the main end-to-end user flow promised by the current sprint contract against the running app.
- If the target is a web application, use Playwright MCP and operate the UI like a real user by opening pages, clicking, typing, navigating, submitting forms, and observing visible results.
- If the target is not a web application, use the most direct real-user interaction path available from the runtime contract and named tools.
- If you cannot complete the main contracted user flow from the running app, do not pass on file inspection alone; record the verification gap and fail conservatively.
- Use the QA report template exactly.
- Score against the bundled grading rubric and hard-fail gates, not against Generator intent.
- Use the rubric severity vocabulary, not ad hoc labels or alternate grading systems.
- Include a
Deduction Ledgerthat traces every actual deduction or hard-fail trigger used to derive the final scorecard. - Make the
Scorecardderivable from the rubric baselines and the rows inDeduction Ledger. - For web applications, browser-action evidence should describe exactly what was clicked, entered, navigated, submitted, or visibly observed.
- Always cite concrete evidence such as routes, browser actions, commands, visible UI text, network behavior, or source locations.
- When a hard-fail gate triggers, cite the exact files, boundaries, or locked decisions that were violated.
- Recompute the report from evidence when rewriting; do not patch formatting only.
What ships with it
7 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 53 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 8eeea9bdab09
evaluator-write-qa is a skill published in the GitHub repository redker56/auto-harness (15 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 639 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
feature-verify
Feature verification (READ-ONLY, P0-P5). Use when: verifying feature behavior after deployment, validating API responses, diagnosing production issues, post-deploy smoke test. Not for: modifying data (use feature-dev), code review (use codex-review-fast), writing tests (use codex-test-gen), security audit (use…
test-review
Test coverage review via Codex exec. Use when: reviewing test sufficiency, identifying coverage gaps, test quality audit. Not for: generating tests (use codex-test-gen), code review (use codex-code-review). Output: coverage analysis + gap report.
post-dev-test
Post-development test completion. Use when: checking test coverage after feature-dev, writing missing integration/e2e tests. Not for: unit test generation (use codex-test-gen), test review (use test-review). Output: test files + coverage report.
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…
test-deep
Context-aware test orchestration. Use when: smart test selection, failure triage, progressive test ladder, test failure analysis. Not for: writing tests (use post-dev-test), reviewing tests (use codex-test-review), generating tests (use codex-test-gen), full manual run (use verify). Output: test results + triage…
test-health
Holistic test coverage measurement. Use when: assessing test health, measuring coverage trends, quantitative + qualitative test audit. Not for: running tests (use verify), reviewing test sufficiency only (use codex-test-review), generating tests (use codex-test-gen). Output: multi-dimensional dashboard with coverage…