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 agentmods add skills/responsibleai/assert/run-assert-evalnpx skills add responsibleai/ASSERT --skill run-assert-evalgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/responsibleai/ASSERTWhat 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 | $0.00153 | $0.08497 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00077 | $0.04248 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00031 | $0.01699 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00850 |
Grade A, and why
run-assert-eval 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 2d 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 — 573 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Run an ASSERT evaluation
When to use
The user wants evidence of how their agent or model actually behaves. Not for fixing the agent — this skill finds and reports failures.
This skill has two entry modes:
- Run mode — no usable results exist yet. Establish a risk source (Steps 1-2):
Clarity (recommended) — an existing
.clarity-protocol/directory or a fresh discovery run driven through the Clarity MCP server (run_clarity), in-IDE — or risks the user supplies directly. Then turn each selected risk into an atomic config, run the pipeline (Steps 3-5), and report (Step 6). - Results Q&A mode — judged artifacts already exist under
artifacts/results/<suite>/<run>/and the user asks a question about them ("what are the highlights?", "top 3 examples of the worst failure mode?", "why did case X fail?"). Skip to Step 6 and answer THAT question from the artifacts — do not re-run, and do not fall back to the full canned report unless asked.
Choosing a risk source (Clarity recommended, never required)
Every eval starts from a risk. There are two supported sources, and the user chooses — never decide for them and never block on Clarity.
Path A — Clarity discovery (recommended — present it first, but never alone). Use an existing
.clarity-protocol/ or a fresh run via the Clarity MCP run_clarity tool.
Clarity's value is finding failure modes the user has not thought of, along
with severity and causal chains. Recommend it whenever the user is unsure what
to measure, is new to the agent, or wants coverage rather than one known bug.
Path B — user-supplied risks. The user names the risk themselves, as prose or by pointing at a PRD, design doc, threat model, incident report, or test plan. This is the right path when they already know what they want measured.
Whenever you need a new risk to measure, and the user has not already named one, offer the choice:
I can discover risks with Clarity — it interviews you and surfaces failure modes you may not have considered (recommended if you're not sure what to measure) — or you can tell me the risk directly, in your own words or by pointing me at a PRD or design doc. Which do you prefer?
What ships with it
15 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.
- clarity_intake.py 21 KB runs code
- README.md 8.6 KB
- SETUP-CHECKLIST.md 5.6 KB
- smoke_slice.py 14 KB runs code
- tests/fixtures/clarity-protocol/failures/failure-01-user-disengagement.md 3.5 KB
- tests/fixtures/clarity-protocol/failures/failure-07-operational-risks.md 2.2 KB
- tests/fixtures/clarity-protocol/failures/failures.md 3.1 KB
- tests/fixtures/monolithic/failures/failures.md 1.9 KB
- tests/fixtures/synthetic/failures/failure-01-malformed.md 369 B
- tests/fixtures/synthetic/failures/failures.md 315 B
- tests/test_clarity_intake.py 11 KB runs code
- tests/test_smoke_slice.py 15 KB runs code
- workflows/diagnose-acs-delta.md 21 KB
- workflows/govern-and-remeasure.md 41 KB
- workflows/measure-clarity-failures.md 26 KB
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 573 lines · 153 tokens per session scan A b1c7a5e5fbe5
run-assert-eval is a skill published in the GitHub repository responsibleai/ASSERT (233 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 153 tokens to every session and 8,497 once invoked, about $0.0008 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
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
babysit-pr
Babysit a GitHub pull request after creation by continuously polling review comments, CI checks/workflow runs, and mergeability state until the PR is merged/closed or user help is required. Diagnose failures, retry likely flaky failures up to 3 times, auto-fix/push branch-related issues when appropriate, and keep…
imagegen
Generate or edit raster images when the task benefits from AI-created bitmap visuals such as photos, illustrations, textures, sprites, mockups, or transparent-background cutouts. Use when Codex should create a brand-new image, transform an existing image, or derive visual variants from references, and the output…
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…
next-cache-components-optimizer
Drive a Next.js route to instant navigation by setting up an agentic loop, under Cache Components / PPR, on initial load (hard navigation) and client-side navigation (soft navigation). Encode the goal as a failing @next/playwright instant() e2e and work it to green, one verified route at a time; the shipped test then…