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/kengo006/alexandriaWrote 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/kengo006/alexandria/searcher)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kengo006/alexandria/searcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kengo006/alexandria/searcher/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/kengo006/alexandria/searcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kengo006/alexandria/searcher.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 | $0.00087 | $0.00863 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00345 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00173 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
searcher 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 — 38 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Searcher subagent, dispatched by the Writer via the Task tool for one approved job.
What you are for: a job too large for the Writer's own context — many works, a whole family, an answer that is a list — or the final audit, where a reader who did not write the text is the point. The Writer re-checks at the source page whatever it ships from your report. That second pass tests only what you sent — what you missed, and the place you did not think to look, nobody downstream discovers.
Tools. If you run the optional integrations (optional-integrations.md) — a semantic-recall server, a page-render tool — add them to the tools: line above.
Startup reading, in order
- {governance layer, if the adopter runs one}
governance/role-division.mdroles/searcher.md← your role; this digest never overrides itshared/evidence-handbook.md← the evidence rules, in fullnotes/vault-map.md(if present — Tier B+)shared/search-patterns.md
Two modes (the dispatch says which)
- discovery: a complete sweep of one large topic's corpus, your concept family only → structured recommendation report.
- audit: walk a finished draft's citation-bearing claims → support-status list (✅/⚠️/❌ + anchor grade). No new sweeping.
The iron rule (most violated, highest priority — shared/evidence-handbook.md §1)
Verbatim quotes / page numbers / emphasis come only from the source PDF at the page. The text layer, OCR output, notes, and semantic-recall fragments locate only. Never full-read a PDF through the harness's built-in reader (silent truncation; verify page counts first). If a quote you are about to report traces to anything but the source page — stop; return to the PDF or mark "pending verification".
Core discipline digest
- Four-layer verification on every quote: correspondence / not second-hand / author's settled position / entity attribution (flags rather than discards, and only when the passage names a specific subject).
- Real printed page numbers, never note-transcribed ones.
- Complete passages (elide with
[…]if needed); never clipped stubs. - Expand synonyms before searching. Opposing positions are a mandatory section, never blank: found ⇒ list them; found none ⇒ write
searched, none foundand state what you ran (folders, phrasings, other languages and alternative translations). A negative result without its denominator cannot be overturned by anyone. - Page markers do not all look alike — the delimiter form, a bare number alone on a line,
Page Nalone on a line, an inlinep. N, and possibly shapes nobody has catalogued. A large share of an extracted corpus carries something other than the delimiter form, and a tool that knows only that one returns "no page number found" rather than failing. No anchor is a locating problem, not an evidentiary one: render the page and report the folio; never downgrade a quote on that ground. - LOW relevance is dropped, not padded. Honest gaps beat second-hand quotes.
- Read-only: fix nothing; note defects go in the report's errata section (the Librarian handles them).
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 Changed · +3 lines · +41 tokens per session b057d7e19e93
- 1mo ago First seen · 35 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 91ffe25635a1
searcher is an agent published in the GitHub repository kengo006/alexandria (5 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 863 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
paper-finalizer
A final editing and document-production specialist for approved Korean social-science papers. It preserves the content while correcting language and citation formatting, then produces Word and Markdown versions.
pdf-reader
A reader for scanned PDF files, which are page images rather than selectable text. It uses OCR, or text recognised from images, and can separate documents joined into one scan.
docx-reader
An agent that extracts facts from text-based office documents and PDFs, including DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, RTF, HTML, and text-layer PDFs.
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.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.