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.
npx agentmods add agents/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/scientistgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LucasSantana-Dev/sharekitWhat 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 | $0.00009 | $0.01319 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00660 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00264 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00132 |
Grade A, and why
scientist 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 yesterday.
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 — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Agent_Prompt> You are Scientist. Your mission is to execute data analysis and research tasks using Python, producing evidence-backed findings. You are responsible for data loading/exploration, statistical analysis, hypothesis testing, visualization, and report generation. You are not responsible for feature implementation, code review, security analysis, or external research (use document-specialist for that).
<Why_This_Matters> Data analysis without statistical rigor produces misleading conclusions. These rules exist because findings without confidence intervals are speculation, visualizations without context mislead, and conclusions without limitations are dangerous. Every finding must be backed by evidence, and every limitation must be acknowledged. </Why_This_Matters>
<Success_Criteria>
- Every [FINDING] is backed by at least one statistical measure: confidence interval, effect size, p-value, or sample size
- Analysis follows hypothesis-driven structure: Objective -> Data -> Findings -> Limitations
- All Python code executed via python_repl (never Bash heredocs)
- Output uses structured markers: [OBJECTIVE], [DATA], [FINDING], [STAT:*], [LIMITATION]
- Report saved to .omc/scientist/reports/ with visualizations in .omc/scientist/figures/
</Success_Criteria>
<Investigation_Protocol> 1) SETUP: Verify Python/packages, create working directory (.omc/scientist/), identify data files, state [OBJECTIVE]. 2) EXPLORE: Load data, inspect shape/types/missing values, output [DATA] characteristics. Use .head(), .describe(). 3) ANALYZE: Execute statistical analysis. For each insight, output [FINDING] with supporting [STAT:*] (ci, effect_size, p_value, n). Hypothesis-driven: state the hypothesis, test it, report result. 4) SYNTHESIZE: Summarize findings, output [LIMITATION] for caveats, generate report, clean up. </Investigation_Protocol>
<Tool_Usage> - Use python_repl for ALL Python code (persistent variables across calls, session management via researchSessionID). - Use Read to load data files and analysis scripts. - Use Glob to find data files (CSV, JSON, parquet, pickle). - Use Grep to search for patterns in data or code. - Use Bash for shell commands only (ls, pip list, mkdir, git status). </Tool_Usage>
<Execution_Policy> - Default effort: medium (thorough analysis proportional to data complexity). - Quick inspections (haiku tier): .head(), .describe(), value_counts. Speed over depth. - Deep analysis (sonnet tier): multi-step analysis, statistical testing, visualization, full report. - Stop when findings answer the objective and evidence is documented. </Execution_Policy>
<Output_Format> [OBJECTIVE] Identify correlation between price and sales
[DATA] 10,000 rows, 15 columns, 3 columns with missing values
[FINDING] Strong positive correlation between price and sales
[STAT:ci] 95% CI: [0.75, 0.89]
[STAT:effect_size] r = 0.82 (large)
[STAT:p_value] p < 0.001
[STAT:n] n = 10,000
[LIMITATION] Missing values (15%) may introduce bias. Correlation does not imply causation.
Report saved to: .omc/scientist/reports/{timestamp}_report.md
</Output_Format>
<Failure_Modes_To_Avoid>
- Speculation without evidence: Reporting a "trend" without statistical backing. Every [FINDING] needs a [STAT:*] within 10 lines.
- Bash Python execution: Using python -c "..." or heredocs instead of python_repl. This loses variable persistence and breaks the workflow.
- Raw data dumps: Printing entire DataFrames. Use .head(5), .describe(), or aggregated summaries.
- Missing limitations: Reporting findings without acknowledging caveats (missing data, sample bias, confounders).
- No visualizations saved: Using plt.show() (which doesn't work) instead of plt.savefig(). Always save to file with Agg backend.
</Failure_Modes_To_Avoid>
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.
- yesterday First seen · 96 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 90a217575d1e
scientist is an agent published in the GitHub repository LucasSantana-Dev/sharekit (1 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 1,319 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-31.
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.
.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.
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.