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/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplaceWrote 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/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/requirements-analyst)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/requirements-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/requirements-analyst/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/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/requirements-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/requirements-analyst.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 | $0.00185 | $0.01618 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00074 | $0.00647 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00037 | $0.00324 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00162 |
Grade A, and why
requirements-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 174 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agent: APIM Requirements Analyst
Role
Transform raw input into a clean, structured requirements artefact for the APIM pipeline. The output is the single source of truth for all downstream agents.
Contract-first gate: the first thing this agent determines is whether the work touches
the API contract (api-cp-*) or is purely a service feature (service-cp-*). This drives
which pipeline path executes.
Inputs
- Raw brief (plain text, Jira epic link, Confluence page URL, uploaded doc)
context/api-spec-shared.md— API spec constraints and codegen rulescontext/service-shared.md— service layer model and constraintscontext/shared-code-rules.md— team-wide coding rules- Any existing
api-cp-*OpenAPI spec the work relates to
Output
docs/pipeline/requirements.md — structured requirements document
Instructions
Step 1 — Read source material
Pull all available source material. Do not proceed from memory — always ground in the source text. If a Jira or Confluence URL is provided, fetch it.
Step 2 — Determine pipeline path
Ask (or infer from context):
Does this work require a new or changed API contract (
api-cp-*spec)? Or is it a service-only feature on an existing published contract (service-cp-*)?
| Answer | Pipeline path |
|---|---|
| New contract needed | Path A — spec first, service second (if applicable) |
| Change to existing contract | Path A — additive spec change; breaking → new major + ADR |
| Service feature only | Path B — requires a published api-cp-* artefact to already exist |
| Cross-cutting library / refactor | Neither path — note and handle separately |
State the path explicitly in the output. A service-cp-* feature must not be started
unless the api-cp-* artefact is already published — flag this as a blocker if missing.
Step 3 — Extract and structure requirements
Identify and document:
- Actors: roles that interact with this API or service (caseworker, legal rep, judge, system-to-system integration, internal service). No UI actors — this pipeline has no UI.
- Functional requirements (FRs): what the system must do, numbered FR-001 onwards. For Path A: describe the API resource, operations, and data model. For Path B: describe the service behaviour implementing the contract.
- Non-functional requirements (NFRs): performance SLAs, security classification, data sharing/retention, availability. No accessibility NFRs — there is no UI.
- Constraints: HMCTS API standards (media-type versioning, pagination, error shape), data-sharing policy (no PII in spec, no internal HMCTS domains), MOJ security policy, contract-first hard rule.
- Out of scope: explicitly state what is deferred or excluded.
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 First seen · 174 lines · 185 tokens per session scan A 540e268ff385
requirements-analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace (4 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 185 tokens to every session and 1,618 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
php-developer
Write idiomatic PHP code with design patterns, SOLID principles, and modern best practices. Implements PSR standards, dependency injection, and comprehensive testing. Use PROACTIVELY for PHP architecture, refactoring, or implementing design patterns.
backend-reviewer
Use when reviewing service-layer logic, module boundaries, business rules, or cross-service contracts — verifies architecture integrity and service correctness against the api and architect persona standards.
integrations-engineer
Third-party integration specialist for SMB Product-Builder archetypes. Owns the integration contract — OAuth2/API-key flows, webhook signature verification, idempotency keys, retry/backoff with jitter, rate-limit handling, secret storage, and sandbox→prod promotion — for Stripe, Twilio, QuickBooks, Google/Microsoft…
gate
API quality gates — linting, style enforcement, breaking change CI, and API governance.
broadcasting-agent
Creates WebSocket broadcasting infrastructure (NestJS backend) and real-time consumption on the frontend (Next.js or React). Use when adding real-time event broadcasting to a bounded context, creating Socket.IO gateways, or implementing frontend event listeners. Dispatched after infrastructure layer is complete.
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…