Agent skill

Evaluating Bgs Mods

by hashgraph-online in hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins

A skill your agent uses when deciding whether a mod belongs in a modpack — judging mod quality, fit, risk, and pack-value BEFORE download/install.

Apache-2.0Auto-check passed

Install Evaluating Bgs Mods

skills CLI
$ npx skills add hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins --skill evaluating-bgs-mods -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins evaluating-bgs-mods --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/plugins/BB-84C/bgs-modding-superpowers/skills/evaluating-bgs-mods .claude/skills/evaluating-bgs-mods && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
evaluating-bgs-mods
GitHub stars
1.3k
Token cost
~2.8k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,213 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
714
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
Apache-2.0

At a glance

A skill your agent uses when deciding whether a mod belongs in a modpack — judging mod quality, fit, risk, and pack-value BEFORE download/install.

  • Works in 12 steps: Read the author's 说明 fully before… → Prefer the original mod page/source when… → If there is no author 说明 at all, reject… → …
  • Deciding whether a mod belongs in a modpack — judging mod quality
  • SKILL.md covers The Iron Law, Route gate (one primary skill…, When to use / When NOT and Process Flow, plus 6 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Evaluating Bgs Mods is an agent skill from hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins. Use when deciding whether a mod belongs in a modpack — judging mod quality, fit, risk, and pack-value BEFORE download/install. Triggers - "should I add this mod", "is this mod good", "评估这个mod", "这个mod值得装吗", "is this mod worth it", "this mod looks too good to be true", "compare these mods", "does this mod fit my pack". NOT for how to install a mod (use interpreting-mod-author-instructions), load order (writing-bgs-load-order), or conflict resolution (xedit-conflict-audit).

Its SKILL.md is about 2.8k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

The repository describes itself as: A curated list of awesome OpenAI Codex / ChatGPT plugins, skills, and resources. The 1 Codex Marketplace. See live plugins at: https://hol.org/plugins/best-codex-plugins. The licence is Apache-2.0.

When your agent uses it

  • Deciding whether a mod belongs in a modpack — judging mod quality
  • Pack-value BEFORE download/install
  • - should I add this mod
  • Is this mod good

Example prompts

  • “should I add this mod”
  • “is this mod good”
  • “评估这个mod”
  • “/evaluating-bgs-mods”

Workflow steps

12 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Read the author's 说明 fully before judging. If it is English, translate it; the curator's job is to understand it anyway.
  2. Prefer the original mod page/source when possible because it preserves the author 说明. A rehost with the same files but missing explanation…
  3. If there is no author 说明 at all, reject by default. You cannot evaluate consequences that the author did not describe.
  4. Check the publication/update date of recommendation articles and read across different authors/time periods. Community advice ages.
  5. Prefer pure technical discussion signals over commercial-pack promotion signals when using community articles or forum posts.
  6. Declare the pack 风格 before evaluating fit. A pack without a named style has no axis for "belongs".
  7. Judge the mod against that 风格, not against screenshot appeal, novelty, or download gravity.
  8. Ask whether the mod reinforces systemic feedback: behavior traceability, state propagation, consistent consequences.
  9. Treat most data overlap as normal until there is evidence it causes a real problem; do not confuse overlap with failure.
  10. On overlap, prefer the mod imposing a systemic unified rule over an incidental vanilla-record tweak that looks like 作者个人想法.
  11. Account for scale: too many mechanics-changing or story/content-heavy additions can drown the pack's own style even if each mod is…
  12. Name the mod's role in the pack. If future-you cannot tell why it exists, the pack will forget its own architecture.

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 9e7b281. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md (its code samples are dot).

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Evaluating Bgs Mods loads about 2.8k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 124 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,213 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~124
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~2.8k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins at commit 9e7b281, republished under its Apache-2.0 licence (© hashgraph-online). 1,213 words, ~2,770 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/evaluating-bgs-mods/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
evaluating-bgs-mods
description
Use when deciding whether a mod belongs in a modpack — judging mod quality, fit, risk, and pack-value BEFORE download/install. Triggers - "should I add this mod", "is this mod good", "评估这个mod", "这个mod值得装吗", "is this mod worth it", "this mod looks too good to be true", "compare these mods", "does this mod fit my pack". NOT for how to install a mod (use interpreting-mod-author-instructions), load order (writing-bgs-load-order), or conflict resolution (xedit-conflict-audit).

Evaluating BGS Mods (judgment skill)

BGS games are systems simulators, not stage plays: the pack is trying to build a world where behavior leaves traces, state feeds back, and stories happen because systems collide. A mod is not admitted because it looks impressive in isolation; it is admitted when it reinforces the pack's declared 风格 and the game's systemic feedback loop. Stability is the floor. 风格 is the soul.

The Iron Law

text
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A mod earns a place in the pack only by fitting the pack's declared 风格 AND reinforcing the    |
| game's systemic feedback -- popularity, screenshots, and download counts are inputs, never fit. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Route gate (one primary skill per intent)

Use this skill when the decision is whether the mod belongs in the pack at all: quality, fit, risk, redundancy, and pack-value before download/install.

Do not use this skill as the primary skill for adjacent intents:

User intentPrimary skill
"How do I install this?" / read the author's instructions / choose installer optionsinterpreting-mod-author-instructions
Edit, enable, disable, sort, or reason about plugins.txt / load orderwriting-bgs-load-order
Inspect actual records, winners, overrides, or conflict severityxedit-conflict-audit

Terminal handoff: after an INCLUDE or CONDITIONAL INCLUDE verdict, stop judging and hand the mod page to interpreting-mod-author-instructions. Inclusion says "worth considering"; it does not mean "install however you feel like it."

When to use / When NOT

Use when:

  • The user asks "should I add this mod", "is this mod worth it", "这个mod值得装吗", or "does this fit my pack".
  • A mod looks too good to be true and needs a judgment pass before download.
  • Comparing multiple mods that claim to solve the same pack problem.
  • Deciding whether a mod's edits are systemic rules or incidental 作者个人想法 fighting the pack.
  • The pack already has a declared 风格 and the question is fit against that axis.

Do not use when:

  • The user is already committed to install and needs author-instruction interpretation.
  • The question is load-order mechanics or plugin enablement.
  • The question is actual record-level conflict readback.
  • The pack 风格 has not been declared; first declare it via curating-bgs-modpack to name the axis being judged.
  • You are tempted to replace judgment with a generic popularity/recency checklist. BB84's framework is anti-checklist: situational thought over rules.

Process Flow

dot
digraph evaluating_bgs_mods {
  rankdir=TB;
  node [shape=box];

  start [shape=doublecircle, label="Mod candidate"];
  read_page [label="Read the mod page fully\n(author description, requirements, warnings, articles)"];
  classify [label="Classify mod type\n(system rule? content? mechanics? visuals? patch?)"];
  systemic [label="Systemic-fit check\nDoes it reinforce state feedback?\nQuery KB for game-specific facts"];
  quality [label="Quality signals\n说明 quality, source integrity, article date, technical discussion"];
  risk [label="Risk signals\nNo说明, scale, script/off-switch risk, object-density, incidental edits\nQuery KB"];
  packfit [label="Pack-fit check\nDeclared 风格? redundant?\nSystemic-rule vs incidental edit?"];
  value [shape=diamond, label="Risk worth pack value?"];
  include [shape=doublecircle, label="INCLUDE\nthen hand off to install-instruction skill"];
  conditional [shape=doublecircle, label="CONDITIONAL INCLUDE\nname conditions + hand off only after met"];
  reject [shape=doublecircle, label="REJECT\nrecord why, do not download/install"];

  start -> read_page -> classify -> systemic -> quality -> risk -> packfit -> value;
  value -> include [label="clear fit, risks understood"];
  value -> conditional [label="fit plausible, missing proof/conditions"];
  value -> reject [label="off-style, unreadable risk, or low systemic value"];
}

KB query discipline

This skill teaches the judgment posture. It does not inline game-specific operational facts. For every evaluation, query the KB for current game-specific facts and community-standard operational signals before turning risk into a verdict.

Use at least these two query shapes:

text
bgs_kb_query({
  query: "<mod type> risk signals",
  domains: ["install-planning", "engine"],
  games: ["<current game>"]
})

bgs_kb_query({
  query: "mod-evaluation community operational signals",
  domains: ["install-planning", "engine"],
  games: ["<current game>"]
})

[STOP] If you are about to write a game-specific fact into this file, STOP — it belongs in a KB record. This skill may say "query for risk signals"; it must not fossilize one game's current toolchain, engine limits, or crash-diagnosis lore.

Checklist

  1. Read the author's 说明 fully before judging. If it is English, translate it; the curator's job is to understand it anyway.
  2. Prefer the original mod page/source when possible because it preserves the author 说明. A rehost with the same files but missing explanation is missing the evaluation surface.
  3. If there is no author 说明 at all, reject by default. You cannot evaluate consequences that the author did not describe.
  4. Check the publication/update date of recommendation articles and read across different authors/time periods. Community advice ages.
  5. Prefer pure technical discussion signals over commercial-pack promotion signals when using community articles or forum posts.
  6. Declare the pack 风格 before evaluating fit. A pack without a named style has no axis for "belongs".
  7. Judge the mod against that 风格, not against screenshot appeal, novelty, or download gravity.
  8. Ask whether the mod reinforces systemic feedback: behavior traceability, state propagation, consistent consequences.
  9. Treat most data overlap as normal until there is evidence it causes a real problem; do not confuse overlap with failure.
  10. On overlap, prefer the mod imposing a systemic unified rule over an incidental vanilla-record tweak that looks like 作者个人想法.
  11. Account for scale: too many mechanics-changing or story/content-heavy additions can drown the pack's own style even if each mod is individually good.
  12. Name the mod's role in the pack. If future-you cannot tell why it exists, the pack will forget its own architecture.
Show full SKILL.md (552 more words)Show less

Red Flags (STOP)

ThoughtReality
"No description, but lots of downloads, fine."No 说明 means you cannot evaluate risk. Default reject.
"It was recommended in an old list, so it is trusted."Community ecosystems change; yesterday's essential can become today's broken assumption.
"The rehost is enough; the files are the same."Same binary without author 说明 loses the risk-evaluation surface.
"The scanner blames mod X, so remove X."Auto-attribution is heuristic, not diagnosis. Do not yank by ritual.
"Stable load order means good pack."Stability is the floor; declared 风格 is the goal.
"More dialogue/cinematic presentation automatically deepens RPG."BGS's strength is state feedback; performance inflation can pull the pack off-axis.
"I have been doing this for two months; I understand the ecosystem now."That is the documented over-confidence trap. Keep reading and cross-checking.

Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"The 说明 is long English; skimming is enough."Read it fully, even through machine translation. No read, no verdict.
"Install first; if it breaks, disable it."Some mods do not cleanly disable. Uninstall is not rollback.
"Ordering does not matter; xEdit can patch anything."True in principle can still be impractical at real pack scale. Prioritize judgment before creating repair debt.
"Patience is for beginners; I can go fast."Patience avoids most avoidable failures. Speed without reading is not expertise.
"We can define style later; first make it stable."Without declared 风格, you have no axis to decide fit.
"If it boots, the integration is correct."Correctness is systemic: behavior must propagate coherently, not merely load.
"A few more decorative/object mods are harmless."Visual clutter and placed-object density are still systemic risk; query KB before dismissing it.

This section reflects an experienced curator's perspective, distilled from BB84's BGS modpack curation work. It is RECOMMENDED guidance, not enforced rule. If the user has explicit alternative intent (e.g. "I want a tactical FO4 build" or "I'm doing pure visual showcase"), the agent SHOULD adapt rather than push these defaults. The objective rules in this skill body still apply regardless.

When the user does not have a strong overriding style preference, the recommended evaluation lens applies these subjective biases:

  1. Lore-friendly increment over revolutionary overhaul. Mods that extend the game's existing world language earn priority over mods that replace it.
  2. Stability for long sessions over short-term visual wow. A mod that survives 100-hour playthroughs without baking save state is more valuable than a mod with stunning screenshots and unknown long-term behavior.
  3. Honest description = real green flag. Author describing features + caveats
    • known incompatibilities + version-specific notes earns trust regardless of surface polish. Hype language ("plug and play", "完美兼容") earns suspicion regardless of download count.
  4. Author maintenance pattern over single-mod metrics. A responsive author with clear changelog earns trust across all their mods.
  5. System-respecting over content-replacing. Mods that participate in the FormID + Papyrus + Quest state graph earn priority over mods that ignore it and bolt on scripted events.

See KB record mod-evaluation.bb84-curator-perspective-reference for the full curator essay including the underlying Bethesda-design philosophy these biases derive from.

See also

  • interpreting-mod-author-instructions — terminal handoff after an INCLUDE/CONDITIONAL INCLUDE verdict; this skill decides fit, that skill reads how to install.
  • curating-bgs-modpack — defines the pack 风格 this skill judges against.
  • bgs_kb_query — query domains install-planning and engine, including the community-operational-signals record, for game-specific and current operational risk facts.

© hashgraph-online, Apache-2.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in plugins/BB-84C/bgs-modding-superpowers/skills/evaluating-bgs-mods of hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 9e7b281

Compare with similar skills

Evaluating Bgs Mods next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Evaluating Bgs Mods compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Evaluating Bgs Mods this skillhashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins1.3k—~2.8kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Arize Evaluatorgithub/awesome-copilot40k1 repos~8.1kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT
EvaluatorsArize-ai/phoenix12k—~1.7kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
LLM Evaluationdavila7/claude-code-templates32k12 repos~3.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Agent Evaluationsickn33/agentic-awesome-skills47k1 repos~2kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Agent Evaluation Reportingsickn33/agentic-awesome-skills47k1 repos~2.1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Arize Evaluator

    github/awesome-copilot

    Official

    Handles LLM-as-judge evaluation workflows on Arize including creating/updating evaluators, running evaluations on spans or experiments, managing tasks, trigger-run operations, column mapping, and…

    40k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~8.1k tokens
    AI & LLM EngineeringAuto-check: notes
  • Evaluators

    Arize-ai/phoenix

    Author or refine a Phoenix evaluator — code or LLM-as-a-judge — that scores a run's output.

    12k GitHub stars~1.7k tokensUpdated today
    EducationAuto-check passed
  • LLM Evaluation

    davila7/claude-code-templates

    Master comprehensive evaluation strategies for LLM applications, from automated metrics to human evaluation and A/B testing.

    32k GitHub starsUsed in 12 repos~3.5k tokens
    AI & LLM EngineeringAuto-check passed
  • Agent Evaluation

    sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

    Evaluate agent behavior with versioned cases and explicit verifiers.

    47k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~2k tokens
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Agent Evaluation Reporting

    sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

    A skill your agent uses when summarizing agent evaluations where autonomous, assisted, failed, timed-out, or invalid outcomes must remain distinct and comparable.

    47k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~2.1k tokens
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Official

    Author continuously-running online evaluations in PostHog AI observability, grounded in real failure modes you've identified.

    40k GitHub stars~6.7k tokensUpdated today
    AI & LLM EngineeringAuto-check passed

More from hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins

All 714 skills in this repo
  • Anime Reaction Gif

    hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins

    Create original anime-style reaction stickers as looping GIFs and MP4 previews, using generated character pose sheets and timed key poses.

    1.3k GitHub stars~922 tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Calibredb

    hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins

    Manage and query Calibre libraries with the calibredb CLI (local paths or Calibre Content server URLs).

    1.3k GitHub stars~1k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Rust API Test Harness

    hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins

    A skill your agent uses when adding, changing, testing, or debugging Rust HTTP APIs and services, especially when Codex needs black-box integration tests, random-port app startup, real database test…

    1.3k GitHub stars~1.7k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Art

    hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins

    Make a studio's game look like something at build time — a cover from a real frame of the game (free), painted covers, backdrops, textures and character plates from image models through the…

    1.3k GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Calle

    hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins

    Use CALL-E from Codex through the calle CLI. An agent skill from hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins.

    1.3k GitHub stars~2.9k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Game Balance Economy

    hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins

    Balance game difficulty, resources, rewards, probability, progression, economies, and dominant strategies.

    1.3k GitHub stars~618 tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed

Questions about Evaluating Bgs Mods

What does Evaluating Bgs Mods do?

A skill your agent uses when deciding whether a mod belongs in a modpack — judging mod quality, fit, risk, and pack-value BEFORE download/install. Evaluating Bgs Mods is an agent skill from hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins. Use when deciding whether a mod belongs in a modpack — judging mod quality, fit, risk, and pack-value BEFORE download/install.

When should I use Evaluating Bgs Mods?

Evaluating Bgs Mods fits situations like: deciding whether a mod belongs in a modpack — judging mod quality; pack-value BEFORE download/install; - should I add this mod; is this mod good.

How do I install Evaluating Bgs Mods in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins --skill evaluating-bgs-mods -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (plugins/BB-84C/bgs-modding-superpowers/skills/evaluating-bgs-mods in hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins) into .claude/skills/evaluating-bgs-mods in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Evaluating Bgs Mods in Codex?

Run `npx skills add hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins --skill evaluating-bgs-mods -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (plugins/BB-84C/bgs-modding-superpowers/skills/evaluating-bgs-mods in hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins) into .agents/skills/evaluating-bgs-mods in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Evaluating Bgs Mods in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins --skill evaluating-bgs-mods -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/evaluating-bgs-mods, .gemini/skills/evaluating-bgs-mods, .github/skills/evaluating-bgs-mods and .opencode/skills/evaluating-bgs-mods in your project.

What does Evaluating Bgs Mods need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Evaluating Bgs Mods is instructions for the agent only.

Does Evaluating Bgs Mods access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Evaluating Bgs Mods safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Evaluating Bgs Mods use?

Evaluating Bgs Mods is published under the Apache-2.0 licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Evaluating Bgs Mods use?

About 2.8k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 11k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Evaluating Bgs Mods?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Evaluating Bgs Mods: Arize Evaluator (github/awesome-copilot, 40k stars), Evaluators (Arize-ai/phoenix, 12k stars), LLM Evaluation (davila7/claude-code-templates, 32k stars) and Agent Evaluation (sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills, 47k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Evaluating Bgs Mods?

hashgraph-online (a GitHub organization) maintains it in hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins, which has 1,255 GitHub stars. The repository holds 714 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 9, 2026.

Source: hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.