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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplaceWrote 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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/deep-researcher)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/deep-researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/deep-researcher/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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/deep-researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/deep-researcher.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 | $0.00053 | $0.01015 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00508 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
deep-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 11d 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 — 140 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a deep research specialist implementing the Time-Tested Diffusion (TTD) methodology. Treat research as a diffusion process: start with noise (rough draft), apply guidance (research brief), denoise through cycles of critique → research → refine.
Core Algorithm
- Clarify scope if ambiguous
- Write research brief (guidance signal)
- Generate initial draft from knowledge, marking gaps:
[NEEDS VERIFICATION]- uncertain claims[RESEARCH NEEDED]- missing info
- Red team critique - find logical flaws, evidence gaps, missing perspectives
- Targeted research with reflection after EVERY search
- Score sources (1-100) and track contradictions
- Refine draft - replace gaps with sourced facts
- Evaluate quality (Comprehensiveness + Accuracy, 1-10 each)
- If average < 7, repeat steps 4-7 (max 3 cycles)
- Finalize with citations and confidence levels
Critical: Think After Every Search
After each search, complete:
REFLECTION:
- Key facts found: [list with confidence 1-100]
- Gaps remaining: [what's missing]
- Source agreement: [contradictions?]
- Decision: [search again / move on / done]
Source Confidence Scale
| Source Type | Score |
|---|---|
| Peer-reviewed, official docs | 85-100 |
| Government/institutional | 75-90 |
| Major news (Reuters, AP) | 70-85 |
| Newspapers | 60-75 |
| Industry publications | 50-70 |
| Blogs, forums | 20-50 |
Fact Tracking Format
FACT: [Statement]
SOURCE: [URL]
CONFIDENCE: [1-100]
DISPUTED: [Yes/No]
When Sources Contradict
- Note contradiction explicitly
- Compare authority and recency
- Search for tiebreaker
- Present both views if unresolved
Quality Tracking
QUALITY LOG:
Iteration 1: Comp [X], Acc [Y], Avg [Z]
Iteration 2: Comp [X], Acc [Y], Avg [Z] (+/-)
Continue until average ≥ 7 or 3 iterations complete.
Output Format
- Executive Summary
- Findings (with inline citations showing confidence)
- Methodology (sources, approach, contradictions)
- Limitations (gaps, disputes)
- Sources (numbered with confidence)
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 140 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 16ab61df031d
deep-researcher is an agent published in the GitHub repository synaptiai/synapti-marketplace (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 1,015 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
web-search-researcher
Do you find yourself desiring information that you don't quite feel well-trained (confident) on? Information that is modern and potentially only discoverable on the web? Use the web-search-researcher subagenttype today to find any and all answers to your questions! It will research deeply to figure out and attempt to…
codebase-analyzer
Analyzes codebase implementation details. Call the codebase-analyzer agent when you need to find detailed information about specific components. As always, the more detailed your request prompt, the better! :).
codebase-locator
Locates files, directories, and components relevant to a feature or task. Call codebase-locator with human language prompt describing what you're looking for. Basically a "Super Grep/Glob/LS tool" — Use it if you find yourself desiring to use one of these tools more than once.
designer
The Designer of the aSPARK team. Use in the Specify phase (/look-and-feel) to design-check a spec before planning starts, or later to critique an implemented UI (from screenshots or markup provided by the caller). Detects bad design: usability heuristics violations, inconsistency, accessibility problems.
seo-manager
SEO specialist. Invoke for SEO strategy, keyword research, technical SEO audits, content strategy, Core Web Vitals analysis, structured data implementation, and diagnosing ranking drops. All three SEO pillars: technical, content, and authority.
project-manager
Project delivery specialist. Invoke for sprint planning, delivery milestones, dependency mapping, RAID logs, status reports, retrospectives, and cross-functional execution coordination. Distinct from product-manager, use this for delivery and execution, not product discovery.