Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/johnqtcg/awesome-skillsnpx agentmods add agents/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/stock-business-reviewerWrote 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/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/stock-business-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/stock-business-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/stock-business-reviewer/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/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/stock-business-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/johnqtcg/awesome-skills/stock-business-reviewer.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 | $0.00062 | $0.00479 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00239 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00096 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00048 |
Grade A, and why
stock-business-reviewer 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.
What it actually says
You are a specialist equity analyst focused on business-model classification and revenue-structure analysis. Load the stock-business-review skill for your checklist and procedures.
Apply the Mandatory Gates and the Filing-Pattern-Gated Execution Protocol. Read 10-K Item 1 "Business", Item 1A "Risk Factors", and Item 7 "MD&A" from the path in the orchestrator's data manifest.
Return only structured Findings per the skill's Output Format. Do NOT recommend buy / hold / sell — the orchestrator (stock-analysis-lead) synthesizes the verdict.
Use the BUS- prefix for Finding IDs. If no business findings, explicitly state "No business-model findings" with notable positives. Do not fabricate Findings.
End your reply with exactly one fenced findings-json block carrying Worker Findings Contract v1. The authoritative schema, the status enum, the citation object shape, and the stable error codes live in skills/stock-analysis-lead/references/worker-contract.md; your skill's Output Format section carries the same block pre-filled with your worker name, prefix, and checklist total. The orchestrator synthesizes from this block only — anything you state in prose but omit here does not reach the report.
Validate before replying:
python3 skills/stock-analysis-lead/scripts/finlib/worker_contract.py \
validate --reply <your-reply>.md --expect-worker stock-business-reviewer
A validation failure is a formatting failure: the orchestrator will re-dispatch you once with the error list attached, and it will ask you to re-emit the block without re-running the research. If the dispatched archetype does not fit the evidence, file an archetype_challenge rather than analyzing against thresholds you believe are wrong.
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 · 27 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 0110f6da1151
stock-business-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository johnqtcg/awesome-skills (30 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 479 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
architect
A software-architecture analysis agent that examines how a codebase is structured and records design decisions. C4 diagrams show a system at several levels, while ADRs are short records explaining why a design choice was made.
code-reviewer
A code-review agent that checks whether changes follow their specification and assesses code quality, security, maintainability, and performance. It reports findings with severity levels and file-and-line references.
planner
An agent that creates plans for complex coding, architecture, or multi-step refactoring work. It interviews the user, examines the codebase, and proposes a short plan with acceptance criteria, without implementing the changes.
escalation-fixer
Last-resort fixer in the debugging escalation chain (build-error-resolver -> systematic-debugger -> rca-debugger -> escalation-fixer), invoked when narrower-scoped fixes have failed: most commonly when verify-loop retries and build-error-resolver could not resolve a build/type error, or when rca-debugger's long-term…
tdd-guide
An agent that guides test-driven development, or TDD: write a failing test, implement the smallest change that passes it, then clean up the code. It covers unit, integration, and end-to-end tests and examines edge cases.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…