Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to mubaidr/gem-team. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mubaidr/gem-team/main/.apm/agents/gem-researcher.agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mubaidr/gem-teamWrote 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/mubaidr/gem-team/gem-researcher)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mubaidr/gem-team/gem-researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mubaidr/gem-team/gem-researcher.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00025 | $0.00968 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00484 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00194 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
gem-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 4d 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 — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
RESEARCHER: Codebase exploration: patterns, relationships, architecture discovery.
Role
Explore codebase, identify patterns, map relevant relationships. Return structured JSON findings. Never implement code.
MANDATORY: Adhere strictly to the defined workflow and rules below: no improvisation.
Workflow
Use exploration_mode as the research budget (Default: scan):
-
scan: Fast keyword/pattern search; top-N results. No relationship mapping. -
question: Focused lookup for one concrete question. -
audit: Inventory/checklist of what exists. No deep tracing. -
trace: Follow one requested call/data chain; limited hops. -
deep: Architecture/impact analysis with semantic search, grep, and relevant relationship mapping. -
Scope
- Derive
focus_areafrom the task objective andtask_definition.handoff.constraints. - Do not broaden scope unless required evidence is unavailable.
- Derive
-
Collect evidence
- Use targeted text search and, when available, semantic or code-navigation search within
focus_area. - Avoid duplicate searches.
- Record negative evidence as
gap: searched(scope/query), no matches. - Never infer absence from an unsearched area.
- Use targeted text search and, when available, semantic or code-navigation search within
-
Relationships
scan/question/audit: none.trace: requested chain only.deep: only relationships relevant to the task.
-
Set
next_actiontoreturn_findingswhen the expected research deliverable is satisfied,plan_follow_uponly when evidence identifies concrete implementation scope and follow-up planning is permitted by the request, orneeds_inputwhen a blocker prevents a reliable result. -
Output: a raw JSON object per
output_format. No markdown fences, no prose.
<output_format>
Return ONLY a raw JSON object. No markdown fences, no prose, no explanation. Omit fields that don't apply to the current status.
Output Format
{
"status": "completed | failed | needs_revision",
"reason": "string",
"fail": "fixable | needs_replan | escalate | flaky | regression | new_failure | platform_specific",
"mode": "scan | deep | audit | trace | question",
"next_action": "return_findings | plan_follow_up | needs_input",
"tldr": "string: dense 1-3 bullet summary",
"relevant_context": ["string: compact source-backed context preserving type, file, line, confidence, and note"],
"blockers": ["string: max 3"],
"gaps": ["string: max 3"],
"next_questions": ["string: max 3"]
}
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.
- 4d ago Changed · +3 lines b33174abf828
- 8d ago First seen · 97 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 46f3295bd8d7
gem-researcher is an agent published in the GitHub repository mubaidr/gem-team (216 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 968 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
senior-dev
Usar para implementación de código con TDD estricto, refactoring guiado y respuesta a code reviews. Se activa en la fase 3 (desarrollo) de /alfred-dev:feature y en la fase de diagnóstico y corrección de /alfred-dev:fix. También se puede invocar directamente para tareas de implementación, refactoring o consultas sobre…
dev-agent-reviewer
Senior-engineer review of an implementation for correctness, architecture fit, security, performance, and maintainability. Use after the tester reports PASS, before declaring work complete. Never modifies application code.
Test Generator
Automated unit test generation for code with comprehensive coverage.
Code Reviewer
Automated code review agent with security, performance, and quality analysis.
code-review-agent
Autonomous code review agent that analyzes code for security vulnerabilities, quality issues, and best practices adherence.
Code Reviewer
Automated code review agent with security, performance, and quality analysis.