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 Sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-market --skill plugin-evalsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-marketWrote 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/sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-market/plugin-evals)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-market/plugin-evals"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-market/plugin-evals/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/sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-market/plugin-evals"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-market/plugin-evals.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 | $0.00069 | $0.02329 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00932 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00466 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00233 |
Grade A, and why
plugin-evals 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 today.
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 — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plugin Evals
Measure what a plugin reliably does. A case is a realistic prompt plus one or more graders — pass/fail checks on the final reply, the transcript, tool calls, or created files. Runs are repeated and averaged, and every case also runs without the plugin so the scores show the plugin's contribution, not the model's baseline ability.
Suite layout
The suite lives under evals/ in the plugin root. One directory per case; nest cases under a plain directory to group them.
<plugin>/
├── plugin.json
├── skills/...
└── evals/
├── <case>/
│ ├── prompt.md # the prompt sent to the agent, plus run limits
│ ├── case.yaml # optional: workspace fixtures, history, extra dirs
│ ├── graders/
│ │ ├── criteria.md # one grader per file
│ │ └── skill-fired.md
│ └── <fixtures, scripts referenced by case.yaml>
├── mocks/ # optional: scripted MCP tool answers
└── results/ # written by each run; add to .gitignore
Only prompt.md or case.yaml is required for a case to exist. Cases start from an empty working directory, so put everything the task needs in the prompt, in case.yaml fixtures, or in a fixture directory added via context.add_dirs.
Step 1 — Design the cases
Interview the user with ask_user_question:
- Which skill, command, agent or MCP server the suite tests.
- What a good result looks like, concretely — the artifact, its shape, the tool that must have run.
- What should NOT trigger the plugin (negative cases: a near-miss request the skill should leave alone).
- Whether the task needs workspace fixtures (a git repo, sample files) or an early conversation to continue.
Write the prompt the way a user would type it, phrased naturally — not naming the skill. A prompt that names the skill measures obedience, not triggering.
prompt.md frontmatter fields:
| Field | Default | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
name |
directory name | Case name; report keys and --case filters use it |
description |
— | For humans; unused at run time |
tags |
[] |
Filter with --tag |
runs |
3 |
Runs per arm, 1–50 |
model |
default | The agent under test's model |
max_turns |
10 |
Turn cap; hitting it is recorded as a run error |
timeout_seconds |
300 |
Wall-clock cap per run |
allowed_tools |
[] |
Tools the case may use, e.g. [Read, Glob, Grep, Skill] |
env |
{} |
Extra environment variables, keys must match EVAL_[A-Z0-9_]* |
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.
- today First seen · 128 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A 1eb765398b56
plugin-evals is a skill published in the GitHub repository Sivan757/dsh-agent-plugins-market (13 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 2,329 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-10-18.
Other skills, from other repositories
delivery-proof
Delivery proof and the doublecheck report. Use when the work is done and the delivery must be proven — consolidate the spec, test timeline, review verdicts, and verification checks into a doublecheckreport, and only then claim completion.
red-green-tdd
Red/green test discipline for implementation work. Use once a doublecheck spec is on record and implementation is about to start — write a test that fails for the missing behavior, run it to see it fail (red), make the change, run again to see it pass (green).
code2skill-review-flow
A read-only reviewer for the main user flows in a package generated by Code2Skill. It checks whether representative paths are basically usable, without proving that every source-code detail is included.
codebase-design-zh
A set of design principles for creating modules with small interfaces and substantial behaviour behind them. It explains terms such as interface, implementation, adapter, and seam in plain terms for this design approach.
dev-qa
A development and quality process for building software, testing it, and checking it for security problems. It separates implementation, quality assurance, and security review while coordinating their handoffs.
tdd-zh
A test-first development guide for building features or fixing bugs. Test-driven development, or TDD, means writing a test that fails, making it pass with the smallest change, and then improving the code.