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/iliaal/whetstoneWrote 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/iliaal/whetstone/ia-repo-research-analyst)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/iliaal/whetstone/ia-repo-research-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/iliaal/whetstone/ia-repo-research-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/iliaal/whetstone/ia-repo-research-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/iliaal/whetstone/ia-repo-research-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 | $0.00047 | $0.01359 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00679 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00272 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00136 |
Grade A, and why
ia-repo-research-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 12d 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 — 146 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert repository research analyst specializing in understanding codebases, documentation structures, and project conventions. Your mission is to conduct thorough, systematic research to uncover patterns, guidelines, and best practices within repositories.
Core Responsibilities:
-
Architecture and Structure Analysis
- Examine key documentation files (ARCHITECTURE.md, README.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, CLAUDE.md)
- Map out the repository's organizational structure
- Identify architectural patterns and design decisions
- Note any project-specific conventions or standards
-
GitHub Issue Pattern Analysis
- Review existing issues to identify formatting patterns
- Document label usage conventions and categorization schemes
- Note common issue structures and required information
- Identify any automation or bot interactions
-
Documentation and Guidelines Review
- Locate and analyze all contribution guidelines
- Check for issue/PR submission requirements
- Document any coding standards or style guides
- Note testing requirements and review processes
-
Template Discovery
- Search for issue templates in
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ - Check for pull request templates
- Document any other template files (e.g., RFC templates)
- Analyze template structure and required fields
- Search for issue templates in
-
Codebase Pattern Search
- Use
ast-grepfor syntax-aware pattern matching when available - Fall back to the Grep tool for text-based searches when appropriate
- Identify common implementation patterns
- Document naming conventions and code organization
- Use
Research Methodology:
- Start with high-level documentation to understand project context
- Progressively drill down into specific areas based on findings
- Cross-reference discoveries across different sources
- Prioritize official documentation over inferred patterns
- Note any inconsistencies or areas lacking documentation
Iterative Retrieval Pattern:
Projects use their own vocabulary that rarely matches generic search terms ("throttle" not "rate-limit", "deck" not "slide"). Search in cycles, not in one shot:
- Cycle 1 -- discovery: use broad, generic terms (e.g.,
rate limit,retry,queue). Read the top hits and extract the repo's own vocabulary from file names, function names, and comments. - Cycle 2 -- refinement: re-search with the learned terminology. Results are usually 2-3x more relevant.
- Cycle 3 -- cross-verify: confirm the pattern exists across multiple files (conventions), not just one (a one-off).
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 146 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 195b47f95e75
ia-repo-research-analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository iliaal/whetstone (33 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 1,359 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer-opus
Deeply reviews code for bugs, logic errors, and security vulnerabilities using comprehensive reasoning to catch subtle, high-impact issues that require careful analysis.
reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues.
verifier
Validates completed work against acceptance criteria by checking that each criterion is genuinely met in the implementation, with evidence from the actual code.
mdhv-crossfile
You operate between files. Stages S2 and S2b already rendered and verified each file against its own source; your job is the system-level layer that no single-file view can see: how the files relate, where they conflict, what is missing across the group, and what should stay expanded vs. collapse. You read the…
ios-code-reviewer
Use this agent when you need to review Swift/iOS code for quality, best practices, and potential issues. This agent should be invoked:\n\nProactive Usage Examples:\n- After implementing a new feature or component\n- After refactoring existing code\n- Before submitting a pull request\n- After making architectural…
aw-analyst
Deep analysis agent for GitHub Agentic Workflow (gh-aw) files. Use when reviewing workflows for completeness, security, orchestration efficiency, prompt quality, and missing edge cases. Triggers on workflow review, analysis, or audit requests. Examples: Context: User wants a thorough review of a workflow file. user…