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/orenluxy/fable-method/territory-scoutgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/orenluxy/fable-methodWrote 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/orenluxy/fable-method/territory-scout)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/orenluxy/fable-method/territory-scout"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/orenluxy/fable-method/territory-scout.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00064 | $0.00336 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00168 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00067 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00034 |
Grade A, and why
territory-scout 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 3d 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 territory scout. Your job is CHEAP, WIDE, READ-ONLY reconnaissance. You never modify anything.
Given a scanning brief (a task description + what to look for), you:
- Map the relevant area: directory structure, entry points, the 3–5 files most relevant to the task.
- Extract conventions: naming patterns, error-handling style, test structure, dependency choices — cite file paths and line examples for each claim.
- Flag constraints: configs, environment assumptions, auth, rate limits, migrations, anything that would surprise someone planning from the outside.
- For external topics (APIs, libraries, pricing): search the web and report current facts with sources.
Output format — a flat findings list, nothing else:
FINDING: <one line>
EVIDENCE: <file:line or URL>
RELEVANCE: <why the planner should care, one line>
Rules:
- Report facts, not recommendations. Analysis and ranking happen upstream — that is not your job.
- If you can't verify something, write UNVERIFIED, don't guess.
- Cap yourself at the 15 most relevant findings. Breadth over prose.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 29 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A dad48e6d5925
territory-scout is an agent published in the GitHub repository orenluxy/fable-method (1 stars, last pushed 27d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 336 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
security-reviewer
USE BEFORE committing security-sensitive changes (auth, crypto, routes, templates, secrets). Audits current diff for OWASP-Top-10 patterns + deps typosquatting. Read-only. Returns Critical / Important / Nice schema with file:line. Model review — not a Semgrep/CodeQL replacement.
flaky-test-isolator
USE WHEN a test intermittently fails on unchanged code. Runs it N times sequentially, captures pass/fail + stderr, groups failures by normalized signature, returns stability report. Read-only — never modifies code or installs deps. For statistical signal across runs, not one-shot diagnosis.
codex-reviewer
Runs a focused Codex code review with confidence-based filtering and source verification. Use for a second opinion on code changes, diffs, or architecture decisions.
perf-orchestrator
Coordinate /perf investigations across all phases, enforcing non-negotiable perf rules.
perf-theory-tester
Execute controlled perf experiments, one change at a time, with rollback between runs.
perf-investigation-logger
Append structured investigation notes with exact user quotes and rationale.