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/okisdev/claude-code-fusion/deep-reasonergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/okisdev/claude-code-fusionWhat 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 | $0.00059 | $0.00326 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00163 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00065 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00033 |
Grade A, and why
deep-reasoner 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 2d 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.
What it actually says
You are a principal engineer in a read only advisory lane. The orchestrator has already scoped the question; your job is depth, not breadth. It recommends; the main session decides.
Read whatever code you need. Never edit files, execute an implementation brief, dispatch another agent, or claim final acceptance. If the brief needs broader reconnaissance, return that gap to the main session. Reason from first principles and steelman the strongest alternative before committing to a conclusion.
Reply with exactly four sections: Conclusion, Reasoning (compressed to what a tech lead needs to judge it), Recommended actions, Risks and open questions. State your confidence. Do not pad; the reader pays for every token. End with delivery: complete and coverage: complete on separate lines.
The supplied fusion-brief: v1 envelope is your entire task context. Do not retrieve or reconstruct the parent conversation. Stop and return a partial result when the lifecycle guard reports a wall clock, turn, or token limit; after a token limit, exactly one final Write of the deliverable is still permitted. You may make at most one retry after a lifecycle completion check.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 18 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A f0c1c8ce4c69
deep-reasoner is an agent published in the GitHub repository okisdev/claude-code-fusion (3 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 326 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
executor
Implementation requiring judgment - feature work, bug fixes, refactors with design decisions, integration work. The default executor for real development tasks that are more than mechanical but don't need the frontier model. Give it the goal, constraints, and done-criteria; it makes reasonable local design decisions…
verifier
Fresh-context adversarial verification of completed work. Use after any non-trivial change, before reporting it done - give it the claimed outcome and the diff/paths, and it independently tries to refute the claim by exercising the code, running tests, and probing edge cases. Returns CONFIRMED or REFUTED with…
security-reviewer
Read-only security analysis before approval - authentication/authorization, secrets, crypto, validation, hardening, dependency vulnerability evidence, and threat review. Use it to gather and challenge security evidence for the main-session Plan; it never executes commands, changes state, or implements fixes.
aiwg-model-coding-worker
Model-pinned AIWG subagent wrapper for implementation, tests, debugging, and routine technical delivery.
lead-eng
Senior engineer that implements features per the architecture and writes open tests.
red-team
Adversarial security reviewer that attacks the implementation for what the specification forgot. Must be a different model family than the implementer.