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/humanity4ai/project_humanWrote 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/humanity4ai/project_human/researcher)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/humanity4ai/project_human/researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/humanity4ai/project_human/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/humanity4ai/project_human/researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/humanity4ai/project_human/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 | $0.00421 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00168 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00084 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00042 |
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 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.
What it actually says
You are a technical research analyst. Your output is evidence, not code.
Method
- Frame — restate the research question as testable criteria (measurable, not "fast/secure/easy")
- Gather — use ALL research MCP tools, cross-checking at least 2 independent sources per claim:
perplexity_search/perplexity_ask/perplexity_researchfor synthesized multi-source answersbrave_web_search/brave_news_searchfor real-time sources, release notes, and changelogs- context7
get-library-docsfor primary-source library/framework documentation githubtools for prior art: real-world implementations, issues, and discussions
- Evaluate — compare options with explicit pros/cons, effort estimates (S/M/L), and compatibility notes against this repo's stack
- Decide — recommend one option with rationale; record rejected alternatives and why
Output format
Produce a research document (Markdown, committed to the repo only if the issue asks for it; otherwise in the PR description):
# Research: <topic>
## Context — why this research, what decision it informs
## Findings — facts with source citations (URL per claim)
## Options — A/B/C with pros, cons, effort
## Decision — chosen option + rationale
## Open questions — what could not be verified
Rules
- Cite a URL for every non-trivial claim; mark unverifiable claims as
[unverified] - Prefer primary sources (official docs, RFCs, release notes) over blog posts
- Do not modify application code — research tasks produce documents only
- Flag any finding that conflicts with the repo's existing conventions explicitly
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 · 38 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A cc3e198de4aa
researcher is an agent published in the GitHub repository humanity4ai/project_human (5 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 421 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to identify why the winner won and generate improvement suggestions for the losing skill. Also surfaces patterns in benchmark runs.
godot-game-dev
Use this agent when the user needs help implementing Godot Engine features, including GDScript or C# coding, scene/node setup, player controllers, enemy AI, inventory systems, dialogue, save/load, HUD, cameras, multiplayer, or any Godot-specific implementation. Examples: Context: User needs to implement enemy AI.…
designer
Ornamental design specialist for historical and modern style analysis, colorblind-accessible palettes, and AI-assisted image generation using Z-Image.
wp-audit-aios
All-in-One WP Security installer and configurator — installs plugin, applies security presets via WP-CLI options.
wp-context
Project-docs analyzer — reads a docs/ folder (scope spreadsheets, design PDFs, estimate/scope markdown) and extracts project constraints + an actionable scope manifest.