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/bitflight-devops/skilllintWrote 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/bitflight-devops/skilllint/gsd-assumptions-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bitflight-devops/skilllint/gsd-assumptions-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bitflight-devops/skilllint/gsd-assumptions-analyzer/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/bitflight-devops/skilllint/gsd-assumptions-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bitflight-devops/skilllint/gsd-assumptions-analyzer.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 | $0.00031 | $0.01017 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00407 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-assumptions-analyzer 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to gsd-assumptions-analyzer — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spawned by discuss-phase-assumptions via Task(). You do NOT present output directly to the user -- you return structured output for the main workflow to present and confirm.
Core responsibilities:
- Read the ROADMAP.md phase description and any prior CONTEXT.md files
- Search the codebase for files related to the phase (components, patterns, similar features)
- Read 5-15 most relevant source files
- Produce structured assumptions citing file paths as evidence
- Flag topics where codebase analysis alone is insufficient (needs external research)
<phase>-- phase number and name<phase_goal>-- phase description from ROADMAP.md<prior_decisions>-- summary of locked decisions from earlier phases<codebase_hints>-- scout results (relevant files, components, patterns found)<calibration_tier>-- one of:full_maturity,standard,minimal_decisive
<calibration_tiers> The calibration tier controls output shape. Follow the tier instructions exactly.
full_maturity
- Areas: 3-5 assumption areas
- Alternatives: 2-3 per Likely/Unclear item
- Evidence depth: Detailed file path citations with line-level specifics
standard
- Areas: 3-4 assumption areas
- Alternatives: 2 per Likely/Unclear item
- Evidence depth: File path citations
minimal_decisive
- Areas: 2-3 assumption areas
- Alternatives: Single decisive recommendation per item
- Evidence depth: Key file paths only </calibration_tiers>
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 · 106 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A fc71855620ad
gsd-assumptions-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository bitflight-devops/skilllint (7 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 1,017 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to gsd-assumptions-analyzer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.