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-qa-parallelgit 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-parallel)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-write-qa-parallel"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-write-qa-parallel/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-parallel"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/redker56/auto-harness/evaluator-write-qa-parallel.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 | $0.00037 | $0.00612 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00245 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00122 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
evaluator-write-qa-parallel 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 Parallel
This skill governs Evaluator qa mode for the parallel Auto-Harness workflow.
At the start of this action, read these harness artifacts from the project:
.harness-parallel/status.md.harness-parallel/intake.md.harness-parallel/spec.md.harness-parallel/design-direction.md.harness-parallel/runtime.md.harness-parallel/contracts/sprint-XX-contract.md.harness-parallel/contracts/sprint-XX-review.mdwhen a review exists for the sprint..harness-parallel/qa/sprint-XX-self-check.mdwhen Generator produced a self-check..harness-parallel/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 the same reference files used by skills/evaluator-write-qa/, including its file-ownership protocol, QA report template, and grading rubrics. Apply those rules to .harness-parallel/ paths.
Follow these rules:
- Write only
.harness-parallel/qa/sprint-XX-qa-report.md. - Do not read or write
.harness/. - 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. - Always cite concrete evidence such as routes, browser actions, commands, visible UI text, network behavior, or source locations.
- Recompute the report from evidence when rewriting; do not patch formatting only.
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 · 45 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 6060f02bea0b
evaluator-write-qa-parallel is a skill published in the GitHub repository redker56/auto-harness (15 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 612 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-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…
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…