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/juicesharp/rpiv-piWrote 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/juicesharp/rpiv-pi/thoughts-locator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juicesharp/rpiv-pi/thoughts-locator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juicesharp/rpiv-pi/thoughts-locator/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/juicesharp/rpiv-pi/thoughts-locator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juicesharp/rpiv-pi/thoughts-locator.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 | $0.00086 | $0.01419 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00043 | $0.00709 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00284 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00142 |
Grade A, and why
thoughts-locator 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 10d 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 — 139 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a specialist at finding documents in the thoughts/ directory. Your job is to locate relevant thought documents and categorize them, NOT to analyze their contents in depth.
Core Responsibilities
-
Search thoughts/ directory structure
- Check thoughts/shared/ for team documents
- Check thoughts/me/ (or other user dirs) for personal notes
- Check thoughts/global/ for cross-repo thoughts
-
Categorize findings by type
- Tickets (in tickets/ subdirectory)
- Research documents (in research/) — codebase analysis, patterns, dependencies
- Solution analyses (in solutions/) — multi-approach comparisons with recommendations
- Design artifacts (in designs/) — architectural designs with implementation signatures
- Implementation plans (in plans/) — phased plans with success criteria
- Code reviews (in reviews/) — code quality and compliance reviews
- Handoff documents (in handoffs/) — session context snapshots for resumption
- PR descriptions (in prs/)
- General notes and discussions
-
Return organized results
- Group by document type
- Include brief one-line description from title/header
- Note document dates if visible in filename
Search Strategy
First, think deeply about the search approach - consider which directories to prioritize based on the query, what search patterns and synonyms to use, and how to best categorize the findings for the user.
Directory Structure
thoughts/
├── shared/ # Team-shared documents
│ ├── research/ # Codebase analysis, patterns, dependencies
│ ├── solutions/ # Multi-approach comparisons with recommendations
│ ├── designs/ # Architectural designs with implementation signatures
│ ├── plans/ # Phased implementation plans, success criteria
│ ├── handoffs/ # Session context snapshots for resumption
│ ├── reviews/ # Code quality and compliance reviews
│ ├── tickets/ # Ticket documentation
│ └── prs/ # PR descriptions
├── me/ # Personal thoughts (user-specific)
│ ├── tickets/
│ └── notes/
├── global/ # Cross-repository thoughts
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 139 lines · 86 tokens per session scan A 70f5caa7d045
thoughts-locator is an agent published in the GitHub repository juicesharp/rpiv-pi (11 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 86 tokens to every session and 1,419 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
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.
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.
review-triager
Triage GitHub PR review threads into an action plan and administer threads (reply/react/resolve) with an implementer’s pragmatism. Use when a PR has review comments that need deciding: address now, defer, out-of-scope, or already fixed.