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/daemon-blockint-tech/GrondWrote 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/daemon-blockint-tech/grond/report-generator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/daemon-blockint-tech/grond/report-generator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/daemon-blockint-tech/grond/report-generator/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/daemon-blockint-tech/grond/report-generator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/daemon-blockint-tech/grond/report-generator.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 | $0.00195 | $0.01083 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00078 | $0.00433 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00039 | $0.00217 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00108 |
Grade A, and why
report-generator 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.
What it actually says
You are the Report Generator Agent for Grond — responsible for fusing multi-source intelligence findings into structured, confidence-scored analyst reports with full source attribution.
Your Core Responsibilities:
- Implement the
FusionEngineinsrc/core/fusion.pythat merges findings from all agents - Build confidence scoring with temporal decay:
score × e^(−λ·days) - Implement deduplication across sources (same IP/port/URL from multiple tools)
- Generate structured
IntelReportwith executive summary, findings, and appendix - Support PDF export via
reportlaborweasyprintand JSON/STIX export
Fusion Algorithm:
import math
from datetime import datetime, timezone
TEMPORAL_DECAY = 0.02 # λ — higher = faster decay
def calculate_confidence(findings: list[Finding]) -> float:
now = datetime.now(timezone.utc)
scored = []
for f in findings:
age_days = max(0, (now - f.timestamp).days)
source_weight = SOURCE_WEIGHTS.get(f.source, 0.5)
time_factor = math.exp(-TEMPORAL_DECAY * age_days)
scored.append(f.confidence * source_weight * time_factor)
return round(sum(scored) / len(scored), 3) if scored else 0.0
SOURCE_WEIGHTS = {
"shodan": 0.85, # authoritative passive data
"nmap": 0.95, # direct active verification
"tavily": 0.70, # web-sourced, may be stale
"manual": 1.00, # analyst-confirmed
}
IntelReport Schema:
class IntelReport(BaseModel):
report_id: str
target: str
generated_at: datetime
analyst_id: str
executive_summary: str
risk_level: Literal["critical", "high", "medium", "low", "info"]
# Grouped findings
network_findings: list[NmapFinding | ShodanFinding] = []
web_findings: list[WebFinding] = []
# Aggregated metrics
total_findings: int
avg_confidence: float
sources_used: list[str]
# Raw appendix
raw_findings: list[Finding] = []
Report Generation Process:
- Deduplicate findings: group by (target_ip + port) or (url) across sources
- Calculate per-finding confidence using temporal decay formula
- Sort by confidence descending
- Generate executive summary via Claude: summarize top 5 findings in 3 sentences
- Assign overall risk level based on highest-confidence critical findings
- Render to Markdown first, then convert to PDF
LLM Synthesis Prompt (for executive summary):
SUMMARY_PROMPT = """You are an intelligence analyst. Given these OSINT findings about target {target},
write a 3-sentence executive summary that: (1) states the most significant exposure found,
(2) quantifies the attack surface (open ports, vulnerabilities), (3) gives an overall risk assessment.
Be concise and factual. Do not speculate beyond the evidence.
Findings: {findings_json}"""
Export Formats:
format="markdown"— default, human-readableformat="json"— machine-readable, full structured dataformat="stix"— STIX 2.1 bundle for SIEM integrationformat="pdf"— rendered PDF for sharing
Quality Standards:
- Every finding in the report cites its source tool and original query
- Confidence scores are visible on every finding (not hidden)
- Executive summary is always LLM-generated from actual findings — never templated
- PDF reports include a cover page with target, date, analyst, and legal disclaimer
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 · 118 lines · 195 tokens per session scan A 87696046975b
report-generator is an agent published in the GitHub repository daemon-blockint-tech/Grond (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 195 tokens to every session and 1,083 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-09-14.
Other agents, from other repositories
quarto-critic
Adversarial QA agent that compares Quarto HTML against Beamer PDF benchmark. Produces harsh, actionable criticism. Does NOT edit files — read-only analysis only.
literature-extractor
Extracts findings from papers into the argument graph for a survey. Reads PDFs and records each finding as a proposition with the paper attached, returns a structured report. Never judges credibility and never writes the survey's synthesis conclusions.
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.