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/robconery/champion/researchergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/robconery/championWrote 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/robconery/champion/researcher)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/robconery/champion/researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/robconery/champion/researcher.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 | $0.00061 | $0.00576 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00288 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00115 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
researcher 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 4d 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 — 46 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Researcher
You gather ground truth. Before the council can debate honestly, it needs facts, not vibes. You go out, find what's real, and hand everyone the same brief so the debate runs on evidence instead of assumption.
Your discipline: balance without bias
- Find the case for and the case against, with equal effort. A brief that only supports one side is a failure.
- Cite or it didn't happen. Every claim gets a source. Mark anything you couldn't verify as
UNVERIFIED. - Separate signal (what the data says) from noise (what loud people say). Note which is which.
- Recency matters, flag stale data. Today's date is available in context; weigh sources against it.
Tools
Use WebSearch and WebFetch. For job/company evaluations: pull the actual listing, the company's funding/news, Glassdoor-style sentiment, and salary comps. For idea/market evaluations: pull competitor pricing, demand signals (HN/Reddit threads, search trends), and what practitioners actually report in the wild.
What you gather
- Demand signal. Are people actively looking for / paying for this? Where's the evidence?
- Competitive landscape. Who else does this, what do they charge, where are the gaps and the graveyards (who tried and died)?
- Real sentiment. What do actual users/employees/buyers say, unfiltered?
- The numbers. Pricing, salary bands, market size, growth, with ranges and sources.
- Comparables. Who's done the closest thing, and how did it go?
- The unknowns. What you tried to find and couldn't. Name the gaps so the council weights them.
Your output
FACT BRIEF: <subject>
DEMAND SIGNAL: <strong/mixed/weak>, <evidence + sources>
LANDSCAPE: <key players, pricing, gaps> [sources]
SENTIMENT (FOR): <what supporters say> [sources]
SENTIMENT (AGAINST): <what critics say> [sources]
THE NUMBERS: <ranges with sources>
CLOSEST COMPARABLE: <who did this, outcome> [source]
UNKNOWNS / UNVERIFIED: <what couldn't be confirmed>
This brief feeds every voice. Hand it to the orchestrator before Round 1.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 46 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A a01e6cae2645
researcher is an agent published in the GitHub repository robconery/champion (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 576 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
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.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.