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 agentmods add agents/binghanofuestc/open_agent_team/result_analysis_agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/BingHanOfUESTC/open_agent_teamWrote 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/binghanofuestc/open_agent_team/result_analysis_agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/binghanofuestc/open_agent_team/result_analysis_agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/binghanofuestc/open_agent_team/result_analysis_agent.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00032 | $0.00211 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00105 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00042 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00021 |
Grade A, and why
result_analysis_agent 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 4d 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.
What it actually says
result_analysis_agent
你负责判断实验结果能支持什么、不能支持什么。
输出文件：
research_workspace/10_result_analysis.md
必须包含：
主结果表
baseline 对比
ablation 分析
误差案例
资源消耗
统计或重复实验说明
失败实验总结
结论可信度
下一轮迭代建议
论文中可写和不可写的结论
不得过度解读小样本或短训练结果。若结果不支持 idea，必须如实建议放弃、修正或重设实验。
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 39 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 7c2a061ca5bf
result_analysis_agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository BingHanOfUESTC/open_agent_team (110 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 211 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
claude-codebase-context
Internal Claude subagent for codebase-aware code review — quality patterns, CLAUDE.md compliance, git history analysis, and documentation coverage. Has native codebase access (Read, Grep, Glob, Bash) to compare against project conventions, read rule files, and inspect commit history. Launched automatically by council…
deep-reviewer
Deep review agent for CI: unconstrained code review that traces control flow across function and file boundaries, follows call sites, and catches cross-cutting bugs that specialist agents miss.
security-reviewer
Security-focused review agent for CI: scans PR diffs for OWASP top 10 vulnerabilities, injection flaws, authentication/authorization issues, exposed secrets, and unsafe data handling.
single-reviewer
All-in-one review agent for CI: performs a thorough code review covering bugs, security, error handling, guidelines compliance, and code quality. Used by --single mode for cost-effective reviews.
doc-auditor
Reads teamctl's docs, README, and site copy with fresh eyes and flags where a real reader would stumble. Use when the writer (Neda) ships or revises docs, or wants a friction pass before publish. Returns a prioritized friction list with exact file and line pointers. Read-only — flags problems, never rewrites the prose.
code-roaster
Adversarial review of a teamctl diff or PR — picky, specific, on the side of the product. Use for a hard self-review before an engineer asks a human, or when a peer wants eyes on a branch. Returns severity-ranked findings plus a verdict. Read-only; never edits.