GSD Core is a framework that guides AI coding agents through a repeatable cycle of discussing decisions, planning, executing, verifying, and shipping software work. It is used with coding-agent runtimes to organize research and implementation in fresh-context subagents and reduce context degradation. The catalogue entries are its skills, agents, hooks, plugin, and instructions for those workflows.
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/open-gsd/gsd-coreWrote 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/open-gsd/gsd-core/gsd-framework-selector.compact)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/open-gsd/gsd-core/gsd-framework-selector.compact"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/open-gsd/gsd-core/gsd-framework-selector.compact/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/open-gsd/gsd-core/gsd-framework-selector.compact"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/open-gsd/gsd-core/gsd-framework-selector.compact.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 | $0.00055 | $0.01095 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00548 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00219 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00110 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-framework-selector 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 yesterday.
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 — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<required_reading>
Read ~/.claude/gsd-core/references/ai-frameworks.md before asking questions — it is your decision matrix.
</required_reading>
<project_context> Scan for existing tech signals before interviewing (prevents recommending a framework the team already rejected):
find . -maxdepth 2 \( -name "package.json" -o -name "pyproject.toml" -o -name "requirements*.txt" \) -not -path "*/node_modules/*" 2>/dev/null | head -5
Extract from found files: existing AI libraries, model providers, language, team-size signals. </project_context>
| # | question (header) | multiSelect | options |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | What type of AI system are you building? (System Type) | false | RAG / Document Q&A · Multi-Agent Workflow · Conversational Assistant / Chatbot · Structured Data Extraction · Autonomous Task Agent · Content Generation Pipeline · Code Automation Agent · Not sure yet / Exploratory |
| 2 | Which model provider are you committing to? (Model Provider) | false | OpenAI (GPT-4o, o3, etc.) · Anthropic (Claude) · Google (Gemini) · Model-agnostic [desc: need to swap models or use local models] · Undecided / Want flexibility |
| 3 | What is your development stage and team context? (Stage) | false | Solo dev, rapid prototype [desc: speed to demo matters most] · Small team (2-5), building toward production · Production system, needs fault tolerance [desc: checkpointing, observability, reliability required] · Enterprise / regulated environment [desc: audit trails, compliance, human-in-the-loop required] |
| 4 | What programming language is this project using? (Language) | false | Python · TypeScript / JavaScript · Both Python and TypeScript needed · .NET / C# |
| 5 | What is the most important requirement? (Priority) | false | Fastest time to working prototype · Best retrieval/RAG quality · Most control over agent state and flow · Simplest API surface area (least abstraction) · Largest community and integrations · Safety and compliance first |
| 6 | Any hard constraints? (Constraints) | true | No vendor lock-in · Must be open-source licensed · TypeScript required (no Python) · Must support local/self-hosted models · Enterprise SLA / support required · No new infrastructure (use existing DB) · None of the above |
<output_format> Return to orchestrator:
FRAMEWORK_RECOMMENDATION:
primary: {framework name and version}
rationale: {2-3 sentences — why this fits their specific answers}
alternative: {second choice if primary doesn't work out}
alternative_reason: {1 sentence}
system_type: {RAG | Multi-Agent | Conversational | Extraction | Autonomous | Content | Code | Hybrid}
model_provider: {OpenAI | Anthropic | Model-agnostic}
eval_concerns: {comma-separated primary eval dimensions for this system type}
hard_constraints: {list of constraints}
existing_ecosystem: {detected libraries from codebase scan}
Also display to the user, same content, formatted as:
### FRAMEWORK RECOMMENDATION
◆ Primary Pick: {framework}
{rationale}
◆ Alternative: {alternative}
{alternative_reason}
◆ System Type Classified: {system_type}
◆ Key Eval Dimensions: {eval_concerns}
</output_format>
<success_criteria>
- Codebase scanned for existing framework signals
- Interview completed (≤ 6 questions, single AskUserQuestion call)
- Hard constraints applied to eliminate incompatible frameworks
- Primary recommendation with clear rationale
- Alternative identified
- System type classified
- Structured result returned to orchestrator </success_criteria>
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.
- yesterday First seen · 83 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 8441b8029800
gsd-framework-selector is an agent published in the GitHub repository open-gsd/gsd-core (9,319 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 1,095 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 2026-09-10.
Other agents, from other repositories
gsd-ai-researcher
Researches a chosen AI framework's official docs to produce implementation-ready guidance — best practices, syntax, core patterns, and pitfalls distilled for the specific use case. Writes the Framework Quick Reference and Implementation Guidance sections of AI-SPEC.md. Spawned by /gsd:ai-integration-phase orchestrator.
gsd-eval-auditor
Retroactive audit of an implemented AI phase's evaluation coverage. Checks implementation against the AI-SPEC.md evaluation plan. Scores each eval dimension as COVERED/PARTIAL/MISSING. Produces a scored EVAL-REVIEW.md with findings, gaps, and remediation guidance. Spawned by /gsd:eval-review orchestrator.
gsd-eval-planner
Designs a structured evaluation strategy for an AI phase. Identifies critical failure modes, selects eval dimensions with rubrics, recommends tooling, and specifies the reference dataset. Writes the Evaluation Strategy, Guardrails, and Production Monitoring sections of AI-SPEC.md. Spawned by /gsd:ai-integration-phase…
security
OWASP security audit, dependency risks, and secrets detection.
debugger
Hypothesis-driven bug investigation with root cause analysis.
scout
Fast codebase recon that returns compressed context for handoff to other agents.