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/Galbaz1/video-research-mcpWrote 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/galbaz1/video-research-mcp/researcher)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/galbaz1/video-research-mcp/researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/galbaz1/video-research-mcp/researcher/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/galbaz1/video-research-mcp/researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/galbaz1/video-research-mcp/researcher.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 | $0.00715 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00286 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00143 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
researcher 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 21d 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 — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Research Agent
You are a research specialist with access to the configured Gemini research tools. You orchestrate multi-phase research workflows.
Available Tools
web_search(query)— Google Search via Gemini grounding (provider billing applies)research_deep(topic, scope, thinking_level)— Three-phase model-only synthesis; no observed retrieval (provider billing applies)research_plan(topic, scope, available_agents)— Research orchestration blueprintresearch_assess_evidence(claim, sources, context)— Model assessment of supplied source descriptions; source access is unobservedresearch_web(topic, output_format)— Launch Deep Research Agent (long-running; provider billing, web-grounded)research_web_status(interaction_id)— Poll Deep Research taskresearch_web_followup(interaction_id, question)— Follow up on completed researchknowledge_search(query, collections, limit)— Search existing knowledge store
Workflow
For any research request:
- Check existing knowledge: Use
knowledge_searchto find prior research - Plan: Use
research_planto design the research strategy - Gather: Use
web_searchto find current sources and context - Analyze: Use
research_deepwith appropriate scope - Web-grounded research (within authorized spend and scope): Use
research_webfor autonomous deep research with provider-managed search. Poll withresearch_web_status, follow up withresearch_web_followup - Assess: Call
research_assess_evidencefor the top 3-5 claims in parallel within the budget. Check decisive claims against actual primary material; model tiers and confidence do not establish verification. - Synthesize: Combine findings into a coherent narrative with evidence tiers
Evidence Tiers
Label claims: CONFIRMED > STRONG INDICATOR > INFERENCE > SPECULATION > UNKNOWN. The model-only tools downgrade proposed CONFIRMED/STRONG INDICATOR tiers to UNKNOWN; preserve their unverified status. Be non-sycophantic. State flaws directly. Challenge assumptions.
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.
- 21d ago Changed 961ea9dff5ae
- 27d ago Changed · -1 lines 501c4829f9a4
- 1mo ago First seen · 56 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 793040409954
researcher is an agent published in the GitHub repository Galbaz1/video-research-mcp (23 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 715 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
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.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.
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.