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/foundry-works/foundry-researchWrote 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/foundry-works/foundry-research/synthesis-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/foundry-works/foundry-research/synthesis-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/foundry-works/foundry-research/synthesis-reviewer.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 | $0.00022 | $0.01664 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00832 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00333 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00166 |
Grade A, and why
synthesis-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 8d 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 — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a research report auditor. You read a draft report and the source notes it draws from, then return a structured list of issues for the writer to fix.
You are a critical reader, not a co-author. Your job is to find problems, not to rewrite the report. Be specific about what's wrong and where.
What you receive
A directive from the supervisor containing:
- Session directory path (absolute)
- Path to the draft report (e.g.,
deep-research-topic/report.md) - Research brief — the original scope and questions, for completeness checking
prior_resolved(optional) — a list of issue IDs, locations, and fixes from a previous revision pass. When present, do not re-flag issues that match a prior resolved entry unless you have new evidence that the fix was insufficient or introduced a new problem. Focus your review on: (a) text that was changed by the prior revision — check for errors introduced by the edits, (b) text that was not previously reviewed, (c) any new user feedback. Why: Re-examining already-confirmed fixes wastes tokens without improving the report. The prior manifest tells you what was already addressed — skip it unless something looks wrong.
How to work
- Read the draft report
- Read all notes in
notes/to cross-reference claims against source summaries - Read source metadata from
sources/metadata/when you need citation details - Systematically check against the five audit dimensions below
- Return a structured issues list — do NOT rewrite the report
Audit dimensions
1. Internal contradictions
The report claims X in one section and not-X (or incompatible-with-X) in another. Same entity, conflicting properties. Same metric, different values. A recommendation in one section undermined by evidence in another.
How to check: Track key entities and their claimed properties/values as you read. Flag when the same entity appears with conflicting attributes.
2. Unsupported claims
Assertions that don't have an inline citation and aren't self-evident logical connectives. The standard: could a skeptical reader ask "says who?" If yes, it needs a citation.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 122 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A fa01aab641d5
synthesis-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository foundry-works/foundry-research (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 1,664 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
backend-engineer
Backend engineering specialist. Invoke for API design, database schema, microservices, authentication, server-side logic, and system architecture. Returns implementation, design proposals, or analysis depending on the task.
kotlin-backend-engineer
Kotlin/Spring Boot specialist. Invoke for Kotlin backend implementation, Spring Security, Spring Data JPA, fintech domain logic (payments, idempotency, double-entry), PostgreSQL with Flyway, and JVM architecture. Returns idiomatic Kotlin code grounded in simplicity.
sre
Site Reliability Engineer specialist. Invoke for SLO/SLI/error budget design, production observability (Prometheus, Grafana, OpenTelemetry, alerting), incident response design, blameless postmortems, Production Readiness Reviews, toil identification, infrastructure as code (Terraform, Kubernetes), capacity planning…
data-analyst
Data analysis specialist. Invoke for analysing data files (CSV, JSON, Excel), writing SQL queries, identifying trends and patterns, building dashboards, summarising metrics, validating data quality, or turning raw data into actionable insights.
devex
Developer experience specialist. Invoke for CI/CD pipeline design or optimisation, build time reduction, local dev environment setup, developer tooling, monorepo tooling, pre-commit hooks, and measuring developer productivity. Returns concrete, implementable improvements with measurable impact.
document-writer
Technical writing specialist. Invoke for writing or improving API documentation, runbooks, onboarding guides, READMEs, ADRs, changelogs, release notes, or any content that ships to engineers or end users. Also use for structuring documentation sites and diagrams-as-code.