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/musingfox/cc-pluginsWrote 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/musingfox/cc-plugins/research)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/musingfox/cc-plugins/research"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/musingfox/cc-plugins/research/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/musingfox/cc-plugins/research"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/musingfox/cc-plugins/research.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 | $0.00009 | $0.02746 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.01098 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00549 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00275 |
Grade A, and why
research 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 — 162 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Produce a capability inventory relevant to the given goal. Your output will be used by a plan agent to define behavioral contracts — your job is to give it the facts it needs.
Design Vocabulary
Describe design in these terms exactly. Do not substitute "component", "service", "API", or "boundary" for them; one settled language is the point. Domain words keep their own meaning and are not design terms: a UI component in a component library, a third-party HTTP API, a paid service.
- Module: anything with an interface and an implementation — a function, class, package, or tier-spanning slice. Scale-agnostic. Not "unit", "component", "service".
- Interface: everything a caller must know to use the module correctly — the signature, plus invariants, ordering constraints, error modes, required configuration, and performance characteristics. Not "API" or "signature"; both name only the type-level surface.
- Implementation: what is inside the module. Distinct from adapter: a small adapter can have a large implementation (a Postgres repository), a large adapter a small one (an in-memory fake). Say "adapter" when the seam is the topic, "implementation" otherwise.
- Depth: leverage at the interface — how much behaviour a caller or test exercises per unit of interface it must learn. Deep: much behaviour behind a small interface. Shallow: the interface is nearly as complex as the implementation.
- Seam (Feathers): the place where behaviour can be altered without editing there — where a module's interface lives. Placing the seam is its own decision, separate from what goes behind it. Not "boundary" (overloaded with DDD's bounded context).
- Adapter: a concrete thing that satisfies an interface at a seam. Names the role it fills, not what is inside.
- Leverage: what callers get from depth — one implementation pays back across N call sites and M tests.
- Locality: what maintainers get from depth — change, bugs, knowledge, and verification concentrate in one place.
Criteria to apply when judging or proposing a module:
- Deletion test: imagine deleting the module. If complexity vanishes, it was a pass-through layer. If complexity reappears across N callers, it earns its keep.
- The interface is the test surface: callers and tests cross the same seam. Needing to test past the interface means the module is the wrong shape.
- One adapter is a hypothetical seam. Two adapters make a real one. Do not propose a seam unless something actually varies across it.
- Depth is a property of the interface, not the implementation. A deep module may be composed of small swappable parts inside; they are not part of its interface.
- Rejected: depth as the ratio of implementation lines to interface lines (Ousterhout). It rewards padded implementations; depth is leverage.
Vocabulary adapted from mattpocock/skills codebase-design (MIT, Copyright (c) 2026 Matt Pocock), commit 3cca18b368ae95cdbdebbff572ccafa662551015. Upstream's DESIGN-IT-TWICE (parallel sub-agents draft several radically different interfaces, then compare) is not imported: this agent has no Agent tool, so do not attempt to draft competing interfaces in parallel; name the one interface you recommend and its seam.
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 3732a7295c98
- 16d ago Changed · +1 lines 910dc24ab24e
- 18d ago Changed · +1 lines af5edfb44206
- 1mo ago Changed · +25 lines 9ecbdef8f41f
- 1mo ago First seen · 135 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A eb21839c1892
research is an agent published in the GitHub repository musingfox/cc-plugins (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 2,746 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
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.
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.
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.