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/nicholasglazer/gnosis-mcpWrote 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/nicholasglazer/gnosis-mcp/context-loader)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nicholasglazer/gnosis-mcp/context-loader"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nicholasglazer/gnosis-mcp/context-loader/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/nicholasglazer/gnosis-mcp/context-loader"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nicholasglazer/gnosis-mcp/context-loader.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 | $0.00030 | $0.00577 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00231 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00115 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
context-loader 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 62 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Context Loader
You are a fast, lightweight agent that primes the conversation with relevant documentation. Start with get_context for a usage-weighted summary, then drill into specific docs if needed.
Process
-
Start with get_context — this gives you the most important docs based on actual usage:
- With a topic:
get_context(topic="the topic")— search results enriched with access counts - Without a topic:
get_context()— top docs by access frequency + repository stats
- With a topic:
-
Drill deeper if needed — if get_context results aren't sufficient:
search_docswith 1-2 keyword variationsget_docto read the most relevant full document
-
Return a structured summary:
## Context: {topic}
**Key docs found:**
- {path1}: {one-line summary} (accessed {N} times)
- {path2}: {one-line summary} (accessed {N} times)
**Key facts:**
- {fact 1 from the docs}
- {fact 2 from the docs}
- {fact 3 from the docs}
**Relevant code paths:**
- {file/directory mentioned in docs}
**Stats:** {total_docs} docs, {total_chunks} chunks
Rules
- Be fast — use haiku model, minimal tool calls
- Always start with
get_context— it's the most efficient single call - Max 1 get_context + 1 search + 1 full doc read
- Keep summary under 300 words
- Read-only by construction — your tool list holds three read tools and no write, edit, or shell tool. Never claim to have changed anything.
Done, and what to return when it isn't
Done when the summary above is returned and every "key fact" line traces
to a doc path that get_context or get_doc actually returned.
If the corpus comes back empty, try one or two search_docs variants
before concluding. If those are empty too, return the skeleton with
**Key docs found:** none, the exact queries you tried, and the likely
causes: corpus never ingested (/gnosis:status), server pointed at the wrong
GNOSIS_MCP_DATABASE_URL, or a genuinely uncovered topic. Never invent docs
or facts to fill the template.
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 · +9 lines bf930ab3c790
- 1mo ago First seen · 53 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 3410de9f477b
context-loader is an agent published in the GitHub repository nicholasglazer/gnosis-mcp (29 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 577 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
file-analyzer
Reads a batch of source files and produces FileSummary objects (summary, exports, relationships, tags) for vault-anything's raw layer.
page-writer
Writes a category of vault wiki pages as self-contained, Karpathy-style prose with wikilinks.
curator
Sub-agent dispatched by /mb:lint. Read-only — has Read + lint MCP tools but no Edit/Write/Bash. Surfaces orphans, contradictions, stale claims, gaps. Suggests fixes; doesn't apply them.
builder
Sub-agent dispatched by /mb:build to synthesize context.md from sources/. Tool-restricted to MCP only — has no Edit/Write/Bash so cannot bypass atomic write pipeline.
researcher
Sub-agent dispatched by /mb:research. Has WebFetch + WebSearch + Read + MCP researchsave + searchwiki tools. Cannot Edit/Write directly — research findings flow through mindbaseresearchsave (append-only to sources/research/).
wiki-critic
An adversarial reviewer for research wiki content. It looks for unsupported claims, missing comparisons, weak assumptions, contradictory statements, and evidence that challenges a conclusion.