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 superduke/ganvil --skill evaluategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/superduke/ganvilWrote 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/superduke/ganvil/evaluate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/superduke/ganvil/evaluate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/superduke/ganvil/evaluate/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/superduke/ganvil/evaluate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/superduke/ganvil/evaluate.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 | $0.00047 | $0.00609 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00244 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00122 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
evaluate 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Ganvil Evaluate — Standalone QA Evaluation
Evaluate an existing project or codebase using the ganvil evaluation framework, without requiring a prior plan or build.
What to Do
-
Determine the project type:
- If
$ARGUMENTSstarts with "frontend" or "backend", use that classification - Otherwise, examine the project structure to auto-detect:
- Has
package.jsonwith frontend frameworks (React, Vue, Svelte, etc.) → FRONTEND - Has backend files (Python, Go, Rust, Java server code,
requirements.txt,Cargo.toml, etc.) → BACKEND - Has both → evaluate as FULLSTACK (backend first, then frontend)
- Has
- If
-
Create
ganvil-artifacts/directory if it doesn't exist. -
For frontend evaluation: Delegate to the frontend-evaluator agent.
- The evaluator will start the application, interact via browser, and score on:
- Design Quality (≥7 to pass)
- Originality (≥7 to pass)
- Craft (≥6 to pass)
- Functionality (≥7 to pass)
- Output:
ganvil-artifacts/frontend-evaluation.md
- The evaluator will start the application, interact via browser, and score on:
-
For backend evaluation: Delegate to the backend-evaluator agent.
- The evaluator will start the server, run tests, hit API endpoints, and score on:
- API Correctness (≥7 to pass)
- Data Integrity (≥7 to pass)
- Code Quality (≥6 to pass)
- Functional Completeness (≥7 to pass)
- Output:
ganvil-artifacts/backend-evaluation.md
- The evaluator will start the server, run tests, hit API endpoints, and score on:
-
For fullstack evaluation: Run both evaluators, backend first.
-
Summarize the evaluation results, highlighting:
- Overall pass/fail per dimension
- Critical bugs found
- Top recommendations for improvement
Usage
# Auto-detect project type and evaluate
/ganvil:evaluate
# Evaluate only the frontend
/ganvil:evaluate frontend
# Evaluate with focus
/ganvil:evaluate frontend focus on mobile responsiveness and accessibility
# Evaluate backend
/ganvil:evaluate backend focus on API error handling
Note
This skill evaluates code as-is. It does not require a ganvil-artifacts/spec.md or sprint contracts — the evaluator will assess the project against general quality standards. However, if a spec exists from a prior /ganvil:plan, the evaluator will use it for more targeted evaluation.
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 · 68 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 2bb61e286edf
evaluate is a skill published in the GitHub repository superduke/ganvil (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 609 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
apex-review
Cross-cutting review of recent work — catches gaps between specialists. Use when asked to "review what we built", "check the work", "pre-launch review", or after completing a significant chunk of work.
spine-review
API and backend code review — REST conventions, auth, validation, error handling, pagination, rate limiting, test coverage. Use when asked to "review this API", "code review", "review backend", or "pre-launch backend check".
review
Reviews code changes for concrete bugs with P0-P2 prioritized findings. Uses parallel architectural and implementation reviewers, then validates findings to remove false positives. Use when reviewing a caller-supplied diff, branch, staged changes, file set, or pull request, and use fix mode with caller-supplied…
github-pr-review
Handles PR review comments and feedback resolution. Use when user wants to resolve PR comments, handle review feedback, fix review comments, address PR review, check review status, respond to reviewer, verify PR readiness, review PR comments, analyze review feedback, evaluate PR comments, assess review suggestions, or…
github-pr-creation
Creates GitHub Pull Requests with automated validation and task tracking. Use when user wants to create PR, open pull request, submit for review, or check if ready for PR. Analyzes commits, validates task completion, generates Conventional Commits title and description, suggests labels. NOTE - for merging existing…
requesting-code-review
Guides dispatching a code-reviewer subagent to verify work before proceeding. Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.