Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to briancl2/CustomerNewsletter. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/briancl2/CustomerNewsletter/main/.github/agents/customer_newsletter.agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/briancl2/CustomerNewsletterWrote 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/briancl2/customernewsletter/customer_newsletter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/briancl2/customernewsletter/customer_newsletter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/briancl2/customernewsletter/customer_newsletter/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/briancl2/customernewsletter/customer_newsletter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/briancl2/customernewsletter/customer_newsletter.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 | $0.00030 | $0.02784 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.01392 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00557 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00278 |
Grade A, and why
customer_newsletter 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 11d 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 — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Non-Negotiable Execution Rules
- Do not compress phases. Phase 1A -> 1B -> 1C -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 4.5 -> 4.6 must be materially executed.
- Phase 1.5 (curator-notes) is conditional mandatory: if notes exist (
workspace/curator_notes_*.mdorworkspace/<Month>.md), execute it before Phase 3. - Canonical artifact paths are mandatory. Do not create or rely on
fresh_phase*shortcuts. - Delegation is allowed only as controlled phase delegation to named agents. Never delegate to generic or "general-purpose" subagents.
- Use one delegation unit per phase. Delegate only with explicit start/stop boundaries and canonical artifact + receipt requirements.
- Preferred delegation map:
customer_newsletter: Phase 0, 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, 4.6editorial-analyst: Phase 1C, 1.5skill-builder: skill-authoring tasks only (not newsletter generation phases)
- Do not delete
workspace/newsletter_phase_receipts_<END>.jsonduring an active run. - If the user asks for from-scratch generation, run:
bash tools/prepare_newsletter_cycle.sh <START> <END> --no-reuse
- Before reporting completion, run strict validation:
bash tools/validate_pipeline_strict.sh <START> <END> --production-artifacts- From-scratch:
bash tools/validate_pipeline_strict.sh <START> <END> --require-fresh --production-artifacts - Benchmark consistency:
bash tools/validate_pipeline_strict.sh <START> <END> --require-fresh --production-artifacts --benchmark-mode feb2026_consistency
- If strict validation fails, continue fixing until it passes or explicitly report the blocker.
- Record phase receipts immediately after each artifact write:
bash tools/record_phase_receipt.sh <START> <END> <phase_id> <artifact_path>
- Do not defer receipts until the end of the run.
- Use canonical
phase_idvalues only:
phase0_scope_contractphase1a_manifestphase1b_githubphase1b_vscodephase1b_visualstudiophase1b_jetbrainsphase1b_xcodephase1c_discoveriesphase1_5_curator_processedphase1_5_curator_signalsphase2_event_sourcesphase2_eventsphase3_working_setphase3_curatedphase4_outputphase4_5_polishingphase4_6_videophase4_scope_resultsphase4_editorial_review
- Curator-note discovery must include both:
workspace/curator_notes_*.mdworkspace/[A-Za-z]*.md(for exampleworkspace/Jan.md) Exclude generated files:curator_notes_processed_*,curator_notes_editorial_signals_*, andnewsletter_*.
- For the February 2026 benchmark window (
2025-12-05to2026-02-13), benchmark mode is mandatory before completion:bash tools/validate_pipeline_strict.sh <START> <END> --require-fresh --production-artifacts --benchmark-mode feb2026_consistency
- If benchmark mode fails, keep iterating until it passes.
- In Phase 2, generate
workspace/newsletter_phase2_event_sources_<END>.jsonbeforeworkspace/newsletter_phase2_events_<END>.md, and record both receipts (phase2_event_sources,phase2_events). - For Phase 0, run
python3 tools/generate_scope_contract.py <START> <END>before any broad manual scope discovery. If the helper succeeds, treat its output as the Phase 0 artifact. - For orchestrated Phase 3 runs, generate
workspace/newsletter_phase3_working_set_<END>.mdbefore any broad rereads of discoveries or reference docs, then recordphase3_working_setbefore any Phase 3 curation edits. - If
workspace/newsletter_phase3_curated_sections_<END>.mdis absent during Phase 3, initialize it withpython3 tools/init_phase3_curated_sections.py <START> <END>and edit that scaffold in place. - When the Phase 3 working set exists and its Missing Data Gate does not flag missing inputs, use it as the primary Phase 3 source. Do not reread raw discoveries, curator notes,
LEARNINGS.md, or long reference docs unless the working set explicitly says data is missing. - During Phase 3, replace all TODO markers and HTML comment placeholders in the curated scaffold before recording
phase3_curated.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 153 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 0014814e4e6a
customer_newsletter is an agent published in the GitHub repository briancl2/CustomerNewsletter (11 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 2,784 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
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to identify why the winner won and generate improvement suggestions for the losing skill. Also surfaces patterns in benchmark runs.
insight-documenter
Technical breakthrough documentation specialist. Captures and transforms significant technical insights into actionable, reusable documentation. Use when documenting important discoveries, optimizations, or problem solutions.
instruction-reflector
Analyzes and improves Claude Code instructions in CLAUDE.md. Reviews conversation history to identify areas for improvement and implements approved changes. Use to optimize AI assistant instructions based on real usage patterns.
deep-reflector
Comprehensive session analysis and learning capture specialist. Analyzes development sessions to extract patterns, preferences, and improvements for future interactions. Use after significant work sessions to capture learnings.
security-champion-agent
Navs sikkerhetsarkitektur, trusselmodellering, compliance og sikkerhetspraksis.
code-review
Kodegjennomgang for Nav-applikasjoner — finner feil, sikkerhetsproblemer og brudd på Nav-konvensjoner.