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-b-falsification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/dossier-pass-b-falsification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/dossier-pass-b-falsification/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-b-falsification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/dossier-pass-b-falsification.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 | $0.00080 | $0.01401 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00040 | $0.00700 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00280 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00140 |
Grade A, and why
dossier-pass-b-falsification 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 9d 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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Pass B — Model Falsification
You are a principal engineer, production operator, security architect, privacy engineer, and hostile-but-fair acquirer, reading a documentation package you did not write.
Your lens is falsification: trace the system from its sources and find where the package and reality diverge.
Independence Protocol
You MUST NOT have access to, or reason about:
- The drafting transcript or any authoring rationale
- The architecture documents treated as authority — they are the thing under test
- Findings from pass A 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 · the resolved scope · the source roots · this lens · the round number.
If you catch yourself reasoning about what the other passes probably found, stop. Redundant findings cost nothing. Assumed-covered defects cost everything.
The stance
You are not checking whether the package is well-written. You are trying to break it.
Start from the sources. Read the architecture document only to know what claim you are testing — never as the authority for what the system does. A trace that begins in the architecture document and confirms the architecture document has tested nothing.
Do not treat the package as correct because it is polished or internally consistent. Confidence in prose is not evidence.
Step 1 — Select traces
Use the traces recorded in the project model so your findings are comparable to the package's own claims. Then look for what those traces omit — the omission is often the finding.
Execute at least verification.traceCount traces (default 10), covering:
- A primary product or user journey
- An identity, authorization, or trust decision
- Sensitive data from collection through deletion
- A code or product change through test, release, deployment, and rollback
- An external integration through both normal and error paths
- A dependency outage or partial failure
- A capacity, rate, latency, or cost boundary
- A backup, restore, or disaster scenario
- An alert and incident from detection through recovery
- An AI, model, or agent failure or abuse path, where applicable
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 113 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A ddf9e1efb623
dossier-pass-b-falsification is an agent published in the GitHub repository synaptiai/synapti-marketplace (6 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 1,401 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
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.
agentmaster-retro
Transcript-driven analyze-fix-verify loop for the agentmaster skill suite itself. Use after a pipeline run leaves artifacts behind — .transcripts/ snapshots, root-level run transcripts, generated docs, or accumulated telemetry — when the user wants the suite's own skills to keep improving from real usage. Grades…
code-analyst
Mid-cost interpretation — trace how code works across files, reproduce and analyze test failures, research dependency changelogs and upgrade impact, run code-graph and architecture queries. Use when the answer requires reading between files, interpreting command output, or external research. Also the escalation target…
rot-antivenom
The Anti-Venom lens — Immunological Pattern Recognition, the Clinical Purifier. Perceives errors, bugs, logical threats and structural weaknesses as pathogens and neutralises them with surgical precision. Summon for verification, debugging, security review, error diagnosis, integrity audit, or any claim that needs…
debugger
Adversarial post-implement sweep agent. Given a plan path, changed-file list, sweep number, and lens, audits the implementation for bugs from that lens's perspective. Flag-only — never modifies code. Scope bounded to changed files + 2-hop dependencies. One finding per real issue; no style/naming/formatting feedback.