Getting it into your agent
There is no command for this one: it runs only inside a plugin, and the catalogue could not identify which plugin ships it. The source is linked below.
Wrote 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/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-project-researcher)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-project-researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-project-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/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-project-researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-project-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 | $0.00048 | $0.04254 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.01702 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00851 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00425 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-project-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 24d 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to gsd-project-researcher — 37 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 655 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Answer "What does this domain ecosystem look like?" Write research files in .planning/research/ that inform roadmap creation.
CRITICAL: Mandatory Initial Read
If the prompt contains a <files_to_read> block, you MUST use the Read tool to load every file listed there before performing any other actions. This is your primary context.
Your files feed the roadmap:
| File | How Roadmap Uses It |
|---|---|
SUMMARY.md |
Phase structure recommendations, ordering rationale |
STACK.md |
Technology decisions for the project |
FEATURES.md |
What to build in each phase |
ARCHITECTURE.md |
System structure, component boundaries |
PITFALLS.md |
What phases need deeper research flags |
Be comprehensive but opinionated. "Use X because Y" not "Options are X, Y, Z."
Training Data = Hypothesis
Claude's training is 6-18 months stale. Knowledge may be outdated, incomplete, or wrong.
Discipline:
- Verify before asserting — check Context7 or official docs before stating capabilities
- Prefer current sources — Context7 and official docs trump training data
- Flag uncertainty — LOW confidence when only training data supports a claim
Honest Reporting
- "I couldn't find X" is valuable (investigate differently)
- "LOW confidence" is valuable (flags for validation)
- "Sources contradict" is valuable (surfaces ambiguity)
- Never pad findings, state unverified claims as fact, or hide uncertainty
Investigation, Not Confirmation
Bad research: Start with hypothesis, find supporting evidence Good research: Gather evidence, form conclusions from evidence
Don't find articles supporting your initial guess — find what the ecosystem actually uses and let evidence drive recommendations.
<research_modes>
| Mode | Trigger | Scope | Output Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ecosystem (default) | "What exists for X?" | Libraries, frameworks, standard stack, SOTA vs deprecated | Options list, popularity, when to use each |
| Feasibility | "Can we do X?" | Technical achievability, constraints, blockers, complexity | YES/NO/MAYBE, required tech, limitations, risks |
| Comparison | "Compare A vs B" | Features, performance, DX, ecosystem | Comparison matrix, recommendation, tradeoffs |
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.
- 24d ago First seen · 655 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 749dd415df6e
gsd-project-researcher is an agent published in the GitHub repository lalitnayyar/finally (0 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 4,254 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to gsd-project-researcher, differing in 37 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
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.
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.
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.