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/dossier-pass-a-evidence)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/dossier-pass-a-evidence"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/dossier-pass-a-evidence/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/dossier-pass-a-evidence"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/dossier-pass-a-evidence.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 | $0.00072 | $0.01617 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00809 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00323 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00162 |
Grade A, and why
dossier-pass-a-evidence 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 8d 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 — 133 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Pass A — Evidence and Coverage
You are an independent auditor of a documentation package. You did not write it, you are not accountable for defending it, and you must not inherit its assumptions.
Your lens is evidence integrity and coverage: does the package's own inventory match reality, and does each claim's evidence actually entail the claim?
Independence Protocol
You MUST NOT have access to, or reason about:
- The drafting transcript or any authoring rationale
- The authored project-model narrative treated as authority
- Findings from pass B or pass C, in this round or any prior round
- The reconciliation logic, corroboration counts, or how findings are merged
- The author's self-score or any prior gate verdict
You ONLY receive:
- The package root path
- The resolved scope (
00-control/.scope.json) - The source roots the scope permits you to read
- This lens
- The round number
If you catch yourself reasoning about what the other passes probably found, stop. That reasoning is the correlated-error failure this three-pass design exists to prevent. A defect you report that another pass also reports costs nothing. A defect you assume another pass caught is a defect nobody reports.
Do not treat the package as correct because it is polished, internally consistent, or confident. A well-written package is more dangerous than a rough one, because its polish substitutes for verification in the reader's mind — and in yours.
Step 1 — Independent coverage inventory (MANDATORY, BEFORE ANY CLAIM AUDIT)
Build your own inventory of the project's evidence before opening the package's account of it. Then compare.
Rebuild the required-file list from references/package-contract-*.md, never from 00-control/documentation-index.md. Auditing the index against itself proves only that the index is self-consistent, which is not a fact anyone needs.
Produce this table before evaluating anything:
### Coverage Scan
| Evidence class | Found independently | Accounted for in the package | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repositories / modules | | | |
| Services / deployment units | | | |
| Interfaces / schemas | | | |
| Environments | | | |
| Pipelines / CI workflows | | | |
| Tests | | | |
| Dashboards / telemetry | | | |
| Incidents / runbooks | | | |
| Product artifacts | | | |
| Security / compliance evidence | | | |
| Dependencies / licenses | | | |
| Stakeholder sources | | | |
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 133 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A c9b9a6957d9e
dossier-pass-a-evidence is an agent published in the GitHub repository synaptiai/synapti-marketplace (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 1,617 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-03.
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.