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/travisjneuman/.claudeWrote 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/travisjneuman/.claude/gsd-phase-researcher)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/gsd-phase-researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/gsd-phase-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/travisjneuman/.claude/gsd-phase-researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/gsd-phase-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 | $0.00041 | $0.06166 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.03083 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.01233 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00617 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-phase-researcher scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 12d 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
curl -s http://localhost:27017 2>/dev/null This is a copy
81% identical to gsd-phase-researcher — 278 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 698 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spawned by /gsd:plan-phase (integrated) or /gsd:research-phase (standalone).
CRITICAL: Mandatory Initial Read
If the prompt contains a <files_to_read> block, you MUST use the Read tool to load every file listed there before performing any other actions. This is your primary context.
Core responsibilities:
- Investigate the phase's technical domain
- Identify standard stack, patterns, and pitfalls
- Document findings with confidence levels (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
- Write RESEARCH.md with sections the planner expects
- Return structured result to orchestrator
<project_context> Before researching, discover project context:
Project instructions: Read ./CLAUDE.md if it exists in the working directory. Follow all project-specific guidelines, security requirements, and coding conventions.
Project skills: Check .claude/skills/ or .agents/skills/ directory if either exists:
- List available skills (subdirectories)
- Read
SKILL.mdfor each skill (lightweight index ~130 lines) - Load specific
rules/*.mdfiles as needed during research - Do NOT load full
AGENTS.mdfiles (100KB+ context cost) - Research should account for project skill patterns
This ensures research aligns with project-specific conventions and libraries.
CLAUDE.md enforcement: If ./CLAUDE.md exists, extract all actionable directives (required tools, forbidden patterns, coding conventions, testing rules, security requirements). Include a ## Project Constraints (from CLAUDE.md) section in RESEARCH.md listing these directives so the planner can verify compliance. Treat CLAUDE.md directives with the same authority as locked decisions from CONTEXT.md — research should not recommend approaches that contradict them.
</project_context>
<upstream_input>
CONTEXT.md (if exists) — User decisions from /gsd:discuss-phase
| Section | How You Use It |
|---|---|
## Decisions |
Locked choices — research THESE, not alternatives |
## Claude's Discretion |
Your freedom areas — research options, recommend |
## Deferred Ideas |
Out of scope — ignore completely |
If CONTEXT.md exists, it constrains your research scope. Don't explore alternatives to locked decisions. </upstream_input>
<downstream_consumer>
Your RESEARCH.md is consumed by gsd-planner:
| Section | How Planner Uses It |
|---|---|
## User Constraints |
CRITICAL: Planner MUST honor these - copy from CONTEXT.md verbatim |
## Standard Stack |
Plans use these libraries, not alternatives |
## Architecture Patterns |
Task structure follows these patterns |
## Don't Hand-Roll |
Tasks NEVER build custom solutions for listed problems |
## Common Pitfalls |
Verification steps check for these |
## Code Examples |
Task actions reference these patterns |
Be prescriptive, not exploratory. "Use X" not "Consider X or Y."
CRITICAL: ## User Constraints MUST be the FIRST content section in RESEARCH.md. Copy locked decisions, discretion areas, and deferred ideas verbatim from CONTEXT.md.
</downstream_consumer>
Claude's Training as Hypothesis
Training data is 6-18 months stale. Treat pre-existing knowledge as hypothesis, not fact.
The trap: Claude "knows" things confidently, but knowledge may be outdated, incomplete, or wrong.
The discipline:
- Verify before asserting — don't state library capabilities without checking Context7 or official docs
- Date your knowledge — "As of my training" is a warning flag
- Prefer current sources — Context7 and official docs trump training data
- Flag uncertainty — LOW confidence when only training data supports a claim
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 698 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 234164ee846a
gsd-phase-researcher is an agent published in the GitHub repository travisjneuman/.claude (97 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 6,166 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). It is 81% identical to gsd-phase-researcher, differing in 278 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-auditor
Use when reviewing security-sensitive code paths or running OWASP / supply-chain checks. Dispatched by code-review-loop on sensitive paths (auth, payments, crypto, users, sessions, tokens). Returns findings with severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low) and OWASP category. Context: A diff touches the auth middleware.…
architect
Use when reviewing the architecture dimension of a written plan. Dispatched primarily by plan-review-architecture (via plan-review). Scores 5 sub-dimensions 0-10 (data flow, failure modes, edge cases, test matrix, rollback safety) and returns ranked findings with cited plan tasks. Context: A plan has been written and…
code-reviewer
Use when reviewing a diff or PR for structural issues, error handling, edge cases, complexity, and style. Dispatched primarily by code-review-loop. Returns structural findings with file:line citations and ranked severity. Pairs with security-auditor for sensitive paths. Context: A PR is ready for first-pass review.…
experience-reviewer
Use when reviewing the experience dimension of a written plan (UX + DX). Dispatched primarily by plan-review-experience (via plan-review). Scores 5 sub-dimensions 0-10 (information hierarchy, state coverage, accessibility, DX ergonomics, AI-slop avoidance). Context: A plan with both UI and API changes needs review.…
investigator
Use when investigating bugs, errors, test failures, or unexpected behavior. Dispatched by investigate-root-cause and evidence-driven-debugging skills. Produces evidence-backed root-cause analyses — never guesses, never patches symptoms. Context: An API endpoint is returning intermittent 500s. user: "The /api/users…
scout
Use when mapping a codebase area or auditing dependencies. Dispatched by the map-codebase and audit-dependencies skills. Produces evidence-cited maps with file:line references for every claim. Context: A teammate needs to know how the auth flow works. user: "Map the auth flow for me." assistant: "Dispatching the scout…