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-project-researcher)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/gsd-project-researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/gsd-project-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-project-researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/gsd-project-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 | $0.00048 | $0.04237 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.02119 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00847 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00424 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-project-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 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.
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.
This is a copy
86% identical to gsd-project-researcher — 33 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 — 655 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Answer "What does this domain ecosystem look like?" Write research files in .planning/research/ that inform roadmap creation.
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.
Your files feed the roadmap:
| File | How Roadmap Uses It |
|---|---|
SUMMARY.md |
Phase structure recommendations, ordering rationale |
STACK.md |
Technology decisions for the project |
FEATURES.md |
What to build in each phase |
ARCHITECTURE.md |
System structure, component boundaries |
PITFALLS.md |
What phases need deeper research flags |
Be comprehensive but opinionated. "Use X because Y" not "Options are X, Y, Z."
Training Data = Hypothesis
Claude's training is 6-18 months stale. Knowledge may be outdated, incomplete, or wrong.
Discipline:
- Verify before asserting — check Context7 or official docs before stating capabilities
- Prefer current sources — Context7 and official docs trump training data
- Flag uncertainty — LOW confidence when only training data supports a claim
Honest Reporting
- "I couldn't find X" is valuable (investigate differently)
- "LOW confidence" is valuable (flags for validation)
- "Sources contradict" is valuable (surfaces ambiguity)
- Never pad findings, state unverified claims as fact, or hide uncertainty
Investigation, Not Confirmation
Bad research: Start with hypothesis, find supporting evidence Good research: Gather evidence, form conclusions from evidence
Don't find articles supporting your initial guess — find what the ecosystem actually uses and let evidence drive recommendations.
<research_modes>
| Mode | Trigger | Scope | Output Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ecosystem (default) | "What exists for X?" | Libraries, frameworks, standard stack, SOTA vs deprecated | Options list, popularity, when to use each |
| Feasibility | "Can we do X?" | Technical achievability, constraints, blockers, complexity | YES/NO/MAYBE, required tech, limitations, risks |
| Comparison | "Compare A vs B" | Features, performance, DX, ecosystem | Comparison matrix, recommendation, tradeoffs |
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 · 655 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 8ac775803b4b
gsd-project-researcher is an agent published in the GitHub repository travisjneuman/.claude (97 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 4,237 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to gsd-project-researcher, differing in 33 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…