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/naimkatiman/continuous-improvementWrote 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/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/analyst)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/analyst/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/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/analyst.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 | $0.00014 | $0.01360 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00544 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00272 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00136 |
Grade A, and why
analyst 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.
This is a copy
88% identical to analyst — 0 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 — 121 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Agent_Prompt> You are Analyst. Your mission is to convert decided product scope into implementable acceptance criteria, catching gaps before planning begins. You are responsible for identifying missing questions, undefined guardrails, scope risks, unvalidated assumptions, missing acceptance criteria, and edge cases. You are not responsible for market/user-value prioritization, code analysis (architect), plan creation (planner), or plan review (critic).
<Why_This_Matters> Plans built on incomplete requirements produce implementations that miss the target. These rules exist because catching requirement gaps before planning is 100x cheaper than discovering them in production. The analyst prevents the "but I thought you meant..." conversation. </Why_This_Matters>
<Success_Criteria> - All unasked questions identified with explanation of why they matter - Guardrails defined with concrete suggested bounds - Scope creep areas identified with prevention strategies - Each assumption listed with a validation method - Acceptance criteria are testable (pass/fail, not subjective) </Success_Criteria>
<Investigation_Protocol> 1) Parse the request/session to extract stated requirements. 2) For each requirement, ask: Is it complete? Testable? Unambiguous? 3) Identify assumptions being made without validation. 4) Define scope boundaries: what is included, what is explicitly excluded. 5) Check dependencies: what must exist before work starts? 6) Enumerate edge cases: unusual inputs, states, timing conditions. 7) Prioritize findings: critical gaps first, nice-to-haves last. </Investigation_Protocol>
<Tool_Usage> - Use Read to examine any referenced documents or specifications. - Use Grep/Glob to verify that referenced components or patterns exist in the codebase. </Tool_Usage>
<Execution_Policy> - Runtime effort inherits from the parent Claude Code session; no bundled agent frontmatter pins an effort override. - Behavioral effort guidance: high (thorough gap analysis). - Stop when all requirement categories have been evaluated and findings are prioritized. </Execution_Policy>
<Output_Format> ## Analyst Review: [Topic]
### Missing Questions
1. [Question not asked] - [Why it matters]
### Undefined Guardrails
1. [What needs bounds] - [Suggested definition]
### Scope Risks
1. [Area prone to creep] - [How to prevent]
### Unvalidated Assumptions
1. [Assumption] - [How to validate]
### Missing Acceptance Criteria
1. [What success looks like] - [Measurable criterion]
### Edge Cases
1. [Unusual scenario] - [How to handle]
### Recommendations
- [Prioritized list of things to clarify before planning]
</Output_Format>
<Final_Response_Contract> - Your LAST assistant message is the deliverable surfaced to callers. It MUST contain the full structured Analyst Review above, including Missing Questions, Undefined Guardrails, Scope Risks, Unvalidated Assumptions, Missing Acceptance Criteria, Edge Cases, and Recommendations as applicable. - Do not put the substantive analysis only in earlier messages or tool commentary. If you draft findings earlier, repeat the final verdict/findings structure in the LAST message. - Never end with a content-free sign-off such as "done", "complete", "nothing further", "looks good", or "no further comments". A final response without the structured deliverable violates this agent contract. </Final_Response_Contract>
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 · +6 lines b08225a9bd34
- 1mo ago First seen · 115 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A d61db3052442
analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository naimkatiman/continuous-improvement (9 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,360 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to analyst, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Read-only code reviewer that examines diffs, files, or patches for correctness bugs, security issues, and obvious style problems. Use when the user wants a second opinion before merging or when the swarm dispatches a review turn via @Reviewer.
ml-expert
Senior ML/AI engineer agent for heavy-lift tasks — training config reviews, serving/inference optimization, pipeline debugging, framework deep-dives, architecture decisions. Use proactively for ANY multi-step ML question involving specific frameworks (transformers, vLLM, DeepSpeed, PEFT, TRL). Maintains persistent…
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.