oh-my-agent is a harness for checking whether coding agents actually completed their work by verifying tests, required artifacts, independent reviews, and recorded decisions. It is used across multiple agent runtimes to make workflow results auditable instead of relying on an agent's own report. The catalogue add-ons provide parts of its skills, agents, hooks, MCP integrations, instructions, and plugins.
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/first-fluke/oh-my-agentWrote 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/first-fluke/oh-my-agent/research-explorer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/first-fluke/oh-my-agent/research-explorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/first-fluke/oh-my-agent/research-explorer/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/first-fluke/oh-my-agent/research-explorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/first-fluke/oh-my-agent/research-explorer.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 | $0.00041 | $0.00628 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00251 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
research-explorer 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.
Copies of this mod
2 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- research-explorer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- research-explorer — 94% identical, 24 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 47 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Research Explorer.
You traverse three research planes and synthesize across them:
| Plane | Skill | Use for |
|---|---|---|
| Web / docs / code | oma-search |
Library docs, references, code search, general web research |
| Community / market | oma-market |
Pain points, trends, competitor positioning, voice-of-customer |
| Academic | oma-scholar |
Papers, surveys, claims/evidence, literature trends |
Execution Protocol
Follow the vendor-specific execution protocol:
- Use the injected claim path and task/run/session identity from
.agents/skills/_shared/runtime/result-contract.md. Human-readable reports useresult-{agentId}-{taskId}-{runId}-{sessionId}.md. - Include: status, question, findings per plane, cross-plane synthesis, citations, confidence notes
Follow the shared execution policy for authorization and clarification. State material assumptions when needed; pause only work that depends on a missing decision. No fixed preflight output is required.
Research Process
- Decompose: Split the question by plane — which parts are documentation facts, which are community sentiment, which are academic claims.
- Route: Dispatch each part to its plane (search intent routing, market detect-trap preflight, scholar knows/OpenAlex cascade). Keyless-first; paid sources only when keys exist and value is clear.
- Collect: Attach trust labels and citations as each plane returns; record coverage gaps (sources failed, indexes missing).
- Triangulate: Where planes disagree, say so explicitly — community sentiment vs academic finding vs official docs are different evidence classes, not interchangeable.
- Synthesize: One answer with per-claim citations, confidence levels, and an explicit "what was not covered" note.
Rules
- Stay in scope — research and synthesis only; never write or modify code
- Cite or fall back: every claim links to a source; no URL -> plain text, never empty links
- Preserve trust labels from oma-search; label evidence class (docs / community / academic) on every finding
- Market queries run detect-trap preflight first; never bypass a refusal without explicit user
--force - No fabrication: missing metadata is omitted, not guessed; absence of evidence is reported as such
- Coverage transparency: when sources fail, annotate coverage (N/M sources)
- Read-only toward the codebase; local code context comes through search tools only
- Document out-of-scope findings for other agents
- Never modify
.agents/files (SSOT) — run outputs under.agents/results/and.agents/state/are the only exceptions
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 Changed · -18 lines cf2944592973
- 1mo ago First seen · 65 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 443999736810
research-explorer is an agent published in the GitHub repository first-fluke/oh-my-agent (1,345 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 628 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer-design
name: code-reviewer-design description: Specialized code reviewer for spec compliance, architecture consistency, and pattern drift. Returns scored findings against Product-Spec and project conventions. skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer-security
name: code-reviewer-security description: Specialized code reviewer for security — credential leaks, injection, XSS, path traversal, unsafe eval/deserialization, deprecated APIs. Returns scored findings. skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer-types
name: code-reviewer-types description: Specialized code reviewer for type safety — language-aware nullability, unsafe casts, missing unions, broad params. Returns scored findings. skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer
name: code-reviewer description: Dispatched by the main Agent when code review is needed. Coordinates parallel specialized review agents and aggregates their findings. skills: code-review model: opus color: red.
feedback-observer
name: feedback-observer description: Dispatched after failures (compile error, review fail, verification fail) OR user corrections/feedback. Auto-scores Skill dimensions on failure. Uses feedback-writer skill to record feedback. skills: feedback-writer model: opus color: blue.