Gan Style HarnessSAFE
The agent harness performance optimization system. Skills, instincts, memory, security, and research-first development for Claude Code, Codex, Opencode, Cursor and beyond.
Overview
The agent harness performance optimization system. Skills, instincts, memory, security, and research-first development for Claude Code, Codex, Opencode, Cursor and beyond.
bd656e3e97c4OBSERVED · 2026-09-20Host compatibility
What the documentation claims. We have not run a compatibility test.
| Host | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| claude-code | mentioned |
What it tells the agent
The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.
---
name: gan-style-harness
description: GAN(生成的敵対ネットワーク)スタイルの評価ハーネス、画像生成パターン、および品質メトリクス。
origin: ECC-community
tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob, Task
---
# GAN-Style Harness Skill
> Inspired by [Anthropic's Harness Design for Long-Running Application Development](https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/harness-design-long-running-apps) (March 24, 2026)
A multi-agent harness that separates **generation** from **evaluation**, creating an adversarial feedback loop that drives quality far beyond what a single agent can achieve.
## Core Insight
> When asked to evaluate their own work, agents are pathological optimists — they praise mediocre output and talk themselves out of legitimate issues. But engineering a **separate evaluator** to be ruthlessly strict is far more tractable than teaching a generator to self-critique.
This is the same dynamic as GANs (Generative Adversarial Networks): the Generator produces, the Evaluator critiques, and that feedback drives the next iteration.
## When to Use
- Building complete applications from a one-line prompt
- Frontend design tasks requiring high visual quality
- Full-stack projects that need working features, not just code
- Any task where "AI slop" aesthetics are unacceptable
- Projects where you want to invest $50-200 for production-quality output
## When NOT to Use
- Quick single-file fixes (use standard `claude -p`)
- Tasks with tight budget constraints (<$10)
- Simple refactoring (use de-sloppify pattern instead)
- Tasks that are already well-specified with tests (use TDD workflow)
## Architecture
```
┌─────────────┐
│ PLANNER │
│ (Sonnet) │
└──────┬──────┘
│ Product Spec
│ (features, sprints, design direction)
▼
┌────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ GENERATOR-EVALUATOR │
│ FEEDBACK LOOP │
│ │
│ ┌──────────┐ │
│ │GENERATOR │--build-->│──┐
│ │ (Sonnet) │ │ │
│ └────▲─────┘ │ │
│ │ │ │ live app
│ feedback │ │
│ │ │ │
│ ┌────┴─────┐ │ │
│ │EVALUATOR │<-test----│──┘
│ │ (Sonnet) │ │
│ │+Playwright│ │
│ └──────────┘ │
│ │
│ 5-15 iterations │
└────────────────────────┘
```
## The Three Agents
### 1. Planner Agent
**Role:** Product manager — expands a brief prompt into a full product specification.
**Key behaviors:**
- Takes a one-line prompt and produces a 16-feature, multi-sprint specification
- Defines user stories, technical requirements, and visual design direction
- Is deliberately **ambitious** — conservative planning leads to underwhelming results
- Produces evaluation criteria that the Evaluator will use later
**Model:** Sonnet by default; raise via `GAN_PLANNER_MODEL=opus` for deeper spec expansion
### 2. Generator Agent
**Role:** Developer — implements features according to the spec.
**Key behaviors:**
- Works in structured sprints (or continuous mode with newer models)
- Negotiates a "sprint contract" with the Evaluator before writing code
- Uses full-stack tooling: React, FastAPI/Express, databases, CSS
- Manages git for version control between iterations
- Reads Evaluator feedback and incorporates it in next iteration
**Model:** Sonnet by default; raise via `GAN_GENERATOR_MODEL=opus` for maximum coding capability
### 3. Evaluator Agent
**Role:** QA engineer — tests the live running application, not just code.
**Key behaviors:**
- Uses **Playwright MCP** to interact with the live application
- Clicks through features, fills forms, tests API endpoints
- Scores against four criteria (configurable):
1. **Design Quality** — Does it feel like a coherent whole?
2. **Originality** — Custom decisions vs. template/AI patterns?
3. **Craft** — Typography, spacing, animations, micro-interactions?
4. **Functionality** — Do all features actually work?
- Returns structured feedback with scores and specific issues
- Is engineered to be **ruthlessly strict** — never praises mediocre work
**Model:** Sonnet by default; raise via `GAN_EVALUATOR_MODEL=opus` for stronger judgment + tool use
## Evaluation Criteria
The default four criteria, each scored 1-10:
```markdown
## Evaluation Rubric
### Design Quality (weight: 0.3)
- 1-3: Generic, template-like, "AI slop" aesthetics
- 4-6: Competent but unremarkable, follows conventions
- 7-8: Distinctive, cohesive visual identity
- 9-10: Could pass for a professional designer's work
### Originality (weight: 0.2)
- 1-3: Default colors, stock layouts, no personality
- 4-6: Some custom choices, mostly standard patterns
- 7-8: Clear creative vision, unique approach
- 9-10: Surprising, delightful, genuinely novel
### Craft (weight: 0.3)
- 1-3: Broken layouts, missing states, no animations
- 4-6: Works but feels rough, inconsistent spacing
- 7-8: Polished, smooth transitions, responsive
- 9-10: Pixel-perfect, delightful micro-interactions
### Functionality (weight: 0.2)
- 1-3: Core features broken or missing
- 4-6: Happy path works, edge cases fail
- 7-8: All features work, good error handling
- 9-10: Bulletproof, handles every edge case
```
### Scoring
- **Weighted score** = sum of (criterion_score * weight)
- **Pass threshold** = 7.0 (configurable)
- **Max iterations** = 15 (configurable, typically 5-15 sufficient)
## Usage
### Via Command
```bash
# Full three-agent harness
/project:gan-build "Build a project management app with Kanban boards, team collaboration, and dark mode"
# With custom config
/project:gan-build Trust audit
SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.
| Layer | What it checks | Result |
|---|---|---|
| L0 | Provenance & inventory | PASS |
| L1 | Static analysis of the code | NA |
| L2 | Instruction surface (what it tells the agent) | PASS |
| L3 | Class-specific surface | PASS |
| L4 | Behavioural (sandbox) | SKIPPED |
What the source does
- Filesystem
- none-observed
- Network
- none-observed
- Shell
- none-observed
- Dependencies
- pinned
- Secrets in source
- none-found
Findings (0)
No findings outside the package's declared scope.
Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.
bd656e3e97c4full audit observations/trust-audit/skill/affaan-m__gan-style-harness.json · Report an issue / request a re-scanAudit history
Every audit this skill has had.
| Date | Source | Verdict | Grade | Score | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-20 | bd656e3e97c4 | SAFE | B | 89 | first audit |
Questions
What does the Gan Style Harness skill do?
The agent harness performance optimization system. Skills, instincts, memory, security, and research-first development for Claude Code, Codex, Opencode, Cursor and beyond.
Is Gan Style Harness safe to install?
The audit found nothing in the source that contradicts what it says it does, and graded it B (89/100). Grade A is held back for packages that have also passed a sandboxed behavioural run, which is why a clean skill reads B.
What can Gan Style Harness access on my machine?
The audit observed no filesystem, network or shell use at all in its source.
Which assistants does Gan Style Harness work with?
Its documentation mentions claude-code. That is what the text claims, not a compatibility test we ran.
How current is this page?
The grade is for one exact copy of the source (bd656e3e97c4), read on 2026-09-20. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.