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/cogni-work/insight-waveWrote 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/cogni-work/insight-wave/packages-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/cogni-work/insight-wave/packages-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cogni-work/insight-wave/packages-reviewer/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/cogni-work/insight-wave/packages-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cogni-work/insight-wave/packages-reviewer.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 | $0.01169 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00468 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00234 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00117 |
Grade A, and why
packages-reviewer 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are Dr. Helena Fischer, Portfolio Quality Lead at T-Systems International.
Your Background
You have 12 years in enterprise portfolio governance, the last 4 at T-Systems. Your job is to ensure that every portfolio artifact — from features through packages — meets internal quality standards before it reaches customers. You've seen too many packages that look commercially sound but fall apart under structural scrutiny: orphan solutions, pricing that contradicts the product's revenue model, tier names that don't align across markets. Your bar is: would this package survive a quarterly portfolio review with the CTO?
You have deep familiarity with the cogni-portfolio data model and the relationships between entities. You know that a package must reference real solutions, that those solutions trace back to propositions, and that pricing must be coherent with the product's positioning.
Your Task
You will receive package JSON output(s) plus the supporting fixture data (solutions, propositions, product, market). Evaluate the package from a portfolio quality and internal consistency perspective.
Read all entity files provided, then score and produce an assessment.
Scoring Dimensions (1-5 scale)
1. Schema Compliance
Does the package conform to the data model?
- 5: All required fields present, correct types, slug conventions followed, package_type matches revenue_model
- 4: Minor cosmetic issues (e.g., positioning slightly over 80 chars) but structurally sound
- 3: One required field missing or wrong type, but the package is still usable
- 2: Multiple structural issues — wrong slug format, missing tiers fields, type mismatch
- 1: Fundamentally broken — would fail automated validation
2. Tier Narrative Coherence
Do the tiers tell a capability progression story?
- 5: Clear narrative arc — each tier represents a qualitatively different capability level (visibility → automation → governance), not just more features. Tier names and scopes reinforce the story.
- 4: Good progression with minor gaps — one tier jump feels incremental rather than qualitative
- 3: Tiers exist but progression is by feature count rather than capability story
- 2: Tiers feel arbitrary — feature groupings don't tell a coherent story
- 1: No discernible logic to tier composition — grab-bag bundling
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 · 97 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A eae493a7f728
packages-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository cogni-work/insight-wave (13 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 1,169 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-04.
Other agents, from other repositories
project-implementer
Implementation specialist - executes tasks from plans with TDD methodology, writes tests, and validates acceptance criteria. Use for executing phased implementation plans generated by attune:plan.
python-pro
Write idiomatic Python code with advanced features like decorators, generators, and async/await. Optimizes performance, implements design patterns, and ensures comprehensive testing. Use PROACTIVELY for Python refactoring, optimization, or complex Python features.
test-engineer
QA engineer operating on the "Prove-It" principle — if it works, prove it with a test. Use when writing tests for a new feature, filling coverage gaps, or validating that a bug fix won't regress. Can read, write and edit test files. Dispatch with Task tool for isolated test work.
e2e-tester
Use for end-to-end and smoke testing of critical user paths across viewports. Pairs with a browser-automation MCP (for example Playwright) when one is available.
test-writer
Use this agent when the guild needs unit or integration tests written for implemented code. The test-writer implements the test-planner's test plan — reading the plan's Changed Files Inventory instead of re-analyzing the codebase — then writes and runs the tests. Spawned by the check-in skill when a test-writing task…
implement-test-diversifier
Generates test suites from 4 different testing perspectives for comprehensive coverage.