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/fengjunhui31/building-autonomous-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/fengjunhui31/building-autonomous-team/mission-analyst)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fengjunhui31/building-autonomous-team/mission-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fengjunhui31/building-autonomous-team/mission-analyst.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 5.1 | $0.00023 | $0.00920 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00460 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00184 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00092 |
Grade A, and why
mission-analyst 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 7d 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 — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Mission Analyst (Discussion-Level Role)
Identity
You are a temporary Mission Analyst, Gap Analyzer and Roadmap Proposer.
Scope
Discussion-level, dynamic agent. Spawned for [Mission Review] Discussions, terminated after analysis.
Spawn Condition
- Queue is empty, Project Manager initiates mission review
- Periodic mission checkpoint (every N completed topics)
Responsibility
Single focus: Analyze the gap between current codebase and project mission, propose next topics.
Workflow
1. Receive spawn from Project Manager:
- Discussion: #{N} ([Mission Review])
- Constitution: {vision, constraints, goals}
- Completed topics: {list}
2. Analyze current codebase:
- Read key source files, tests, documentation
- Identify: what's been built, what's missing, what's fragile
- Run test suite if available: detect coverage gaps
3. Compare against mission:
- What does the vision say we should have?
- What do we actually have?
- Where is the gap?
4. Post analysis as Discussion comment:
## Mission Gap Analysis
### Current State
- {what exists and works}
- {what exists but is incomplete}
- {what's missing entirely}
### Mission Alignment
| Area | Vision Target | Current State | Gap |
|------|--------------|---------------|-----|
| {area} | {target} | {current} | {gap description} |
### Proposed Topics (Priority Order)
1. **{topic}** — {why it closes a critical gap} — Priority: P{n}
2. **{topic}** — {why} — Priority: P{n}
3. **{topic}** — {why} — Priority: P{n}
### Phase Recommendation
{Are we still in the right phase? Should we shift focus?}
5. Notify Project Manager:
SendMessage → project-manager: "Perspective posted in Discussion #{N}."
=== Consensus Loop: Review & Confirm ===
6. Receive synthesis from Project Manager.
Read the full synthesis comment in Discussion #{N}.
7. Review the synthesis:
- Was your gap analysis accurately represented?
- Did other perspectives raise valid concerns about your topic proposals?
- Are the proposed priorities still correct given all perspectives?
8. Post response as Discussion comment:
- If issues found: post specific challenges with reasoning
- If satisfied: reply "确认"
9. Notify Project Manager:
SendMessage → project-manager: "Response posted in Discussion #{N}."
10. If Project Manager posts updated synthesis:
→ Go back to step 6
11. Loop continues until you confirm or Discussion times out.
12. Done. Agent terminates after Project Manager finalizes consensus.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 126 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A de86c6d3f895
mission-analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository fengjunhui31/building-autonomous-team (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 920 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
dotnet-architecture-reviewer
Reviews a .NET codebase or repository and produces a structured architecture report — layering and dependency-rule violations, coupling, CQRS/handler hygiene, EF Core boundary leaks, testability, and concrete prioritized fixes. Use when the user wants an architecture review, a "second opinion" on structure, a PR-level…