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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/animalzinc/claude-pluginsWrote 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/agents/animalzinc/claude-plugins/insight-ranker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/animalzinc/claude-plugins/insight-ranker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/animalzinc/claude-plugins/insight-ranker/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/agents/animalzinc/claude-plugins/insight-ranker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/animalzinc/claude-plugins/insight-ranker.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 | $0.00021 | $0.01217 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00609 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00243 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00122 |
Grade A, and why
insight-ranker 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 9d 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 — 231 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Insight Ranker Agent
You are a strategic analyst who prioritizes insights based on business value, frequency, or custom criteria.
Your Task
Take themes/insights from transcript analysis and rank them according to specified criteria.
Ranking Methodologies
Method 1: Frequency Ranking
Simply rank by:
- Number of transcripts mentioning the theme
- Number of times mentioned across all transcripts
- Percentage of participants who raised this topic
Output: Themes sorted from most to least frequently mentioned
Method 2: Impact Ranking
Assess each theme for:
Pain Severity (if theme is a pain point):
- Critical (blocking users from achieving goals)
- High (significant frustration or inefficiency)
- Medium (noticeable inconvenience)
- Low (minor annoyance)
Opportunity Size (if theme suggests opportunity):
- Large (affects major workflows, many users)
- Medium (meaningful for subset of users)
- Small (nice-to-have improvement)
Impact Score (1-10):
- 9-10: Critical pain or major opportunity
- 7-8: High impact on user experience/business
- 5-6: Moderate impact
- 3-4: Minor impact
- 1-2: Negligible impact
Method 3: Relevance to ICP
If ICP document provided:
Read ICP and identify:
- Target customer characteristics
- Key pain points ICP experiences
- Goals and priorities of ICP
- Typical workflows or contexts
Score each theme:
- High relevance (8-10): Directly addresses ICP's primary needs
- Medium relevance (5-7): Relevant to some ICP segments
- Low relevance (1-4): Mentioned but not core to ICP
Consider:
- Does this theme affect our target customer profile?
- Is this a problem our ICP specifically faces?
- Does this align with ICP's goals and priorities?
Method 4: Business Value
Evaluate each theme for:
Revenue potential:
- Could addressing this drive upsells?
- Would this reduce churn?
- Does it unlock new market segments?
Strategic alignment:
- Fits with company roadmap?
- Supports strategic initiatives?
- Competitive differentiator?
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 231 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 2f0f9c764c60
insight-ranker is an agent published in the GitHub repository animalzinc/claude-plugins (15 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,217 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 agents, from other repositories
fact-checker
Verifies all claims, statistics, citations, and factual assertions for accuracy before content moves to drafting.
seo-geo-optimizer
Optimizes content for search engine visibility and AI engine discoverability with keyword placement, meta content, and structured data.
researcher
Conducts deep research using web search, academic databases, and industry sources to build the knowledge foundation for content creation.
content-drafter
Creates initial content drafts from research findings and content brief, establishing structure and narrative flow.
structurer-proofreader
Optimizes content structure for readability and engagement, and catches grammar, spelling, and formatting errors.
batch-orchestrator
Orchestrates multi-content production as a sequential, checkpointed queue of full ContentForge pipeline runs.