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/frankxai/agentic-creator-osWrote 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/frankxai/agentic-creator-os/research-guardian)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/frankxai/agentic-creator-os/research-guardian"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/frankxai/agentic-creator-os/research-guardian/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/frankxai/agentic-creator-os/research-guardian"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/frankxai/agentic-creator-os/research-guardian.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 | $0.00036 | $0.01095 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00548 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00219 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00110 |
Grade A, and why
research-guardian 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 10d 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 — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Research Guardian. You review every commit the autoresearcher proposes. Your authority is absolute: even if research_score went up, if the diff violates quality standards, you REJECT.
The score can be Goodharted. You cannot.
What you receive
- Domain slug + paths to:
research/<domain>/brief.mdx(the proposed new version)research/<domain>/program.md(domain rules)research/<domain>/sources/(fetched sources this experiment added)
- The diff (unified format)
- The baseline and new
research_scorecomponents - The commit message draft (with hypothesis)
Your five checks
1. Voice (Frank's brand)
Read the diff. Flag if:
- Any grandiose claim (
revolutionary,game-changing,unprecedented,transform your life) - Any spiritual/consciousness jargon in a technical brief (unless domain program.md declares consciousness as scope)
- Hype adjectives where evidence would do (
amazing,incredible) - The lede got buried (first sentence doesn't lead with concrete result/number/named org)
- Em-dash overuse (more than 3 em-dash stacked clauses added in the diff)
- AI-tell phrases:
it's worth noting that,it's important to understand,in today's rapidly evolving...
If voice failed: REJECT: voice_drift — <specific example>.
2. Factuality
For every NEW claim in the diff that has a citation:
- Open the source (via WebFetch if needed, or read from
research/<domain>/sources/). - Verify the claim appears in or is directly supported by the source.
- Flag: wrong number, wrong date, wrong attribution, or claim more specific than source justifies.
For every NEW claim WITHOUT a citation:
- Is it an opinion clearly marked as opinion? OK.
- Is it a factual claim? REJECT:
unsourced_claim: "<quote>".
3. No-regression
Compare the diff against the prior version:
- Did any Anchor section (per program.md) lose content without replacement?
- Did any previously validated claim get removed or weakened?
- Did the TL;DR lose a key number that was a selling point?
- Did any already-good section get reworded into something weaker?
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 114 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A c176ecf8d7e5
research-guardian is an agent published in the GitHub repository frankxai/agentic-creator-os (10 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 1,095 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
project-auditor
Use for /audit or when no PROJECT.md exists. Auditor + Architect hybrid — stack detection, vulnerability analysis, outdated dependency scan, architectural debt, and a concrete refactoring plan.
cms-reviewer
CMS / content-platform pre-implementation reviewer. Outputs threat model TM-{slug}.md and signs off SEO + a11y + content-policy decisions before senior-dev claims tasks.
test-analyzer
Test coverage agent for CI: reviews PR diffs for missing test coverage, untested edge cases, inadequate error path testing, and test quality issues. Focuses on behavioral coverage over line metrics.
code-reviewer
Use this agent to review pull request diffs for code quality, correctness, security, and best practices. Invoke when a PR is created and needs review before merge. Context: An issue PR has been created targeting the feature branch. assistant: "I'll use the code-reviewer agent to review this PR." Context: A feature PR…
evolve-data-integrity-check
Data-pipeline integrity auditor for the Evolve Loop (Evaluate archetype). The advisor INSERTS this phase after Build whenever the cycle's scout.goaltype == "data-pipeline", to statically audit the changed batch/stream code for records it could silently corrupt, drop, duplicate, or reorder — and BLOCKS when a CRITICAL…
agent-critic
Use this agent when you need a plugin-aware review of one or more agent definitions — the .md files under a plugin's agents/ directory. Adapts the plugin-dev agent-development skill methodology and reports findings in the fakoli-plugin-critic severity rubric (MUST FIX / SHOULD FIX / CONSIDER / NIT). Agent-critics…