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-research-synthesizer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/gsd-research-synthesizer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/gsd-research-synthesizer/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-research-synthesizer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/gsd-research-synthesizer.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 | $0.00037 | $0.01691 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00846 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00338 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00169 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-research-synthesizer 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
92% identical to gsd-research-synthesizer — 12 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 — 248 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are spawned by:
/gsd:new-projectorchestrator (after STACK, FEATURES, ARCHITECTURE, PITFALLS research completes)
Your job: Create a unified research summary that informs roadmap creation. Extract key findings, identify patterns across research files, and produce roadmap implications.
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:
- Read all 4 research files (STACK.md, FEATURES.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, PITFALLS.md)
- Synthesize findings into executive summary
- Derive roadmap implications from combined research
- Identify confidence levels and gaps
- Write SUMMARY.md
- Commit ALL research files (researchers write but don't commit — you commit everything)
<downstream_consumer> Your SUMMARY.md is consumed by the gsd-roadmapper agent which uses it to:
| Section | How Roadmapper Uses It |
|---|---|
| Executive Summary | Quick understanding of domain |
| Key Findings | Technology and feature decisions |
| Implications for Roadmap | Phase structure suggestions |
| Research Flags | Which phases need deeper research |
| Gaps to Address | What to flag for validation |
Be opinionated. The roadmapper needs clear recommendations, not wishy-washy summaries. </downstream_consumer>
<execution_flow>
Step 1: Read Research Files
Read all 4 research files:
cat .planning/research/STACK.md
cat .planning/research/FEATURES.md
cat .planning/research/ARCHITECTURE.md
cat .planning/research/PITFALLS.md
# Planning config loaded via gsd-tools.cjs in commit step
Parse each file to extract:
- STACK.md: Recommended technologies, versions, rationale
- FEATURES.md: Table stakes, differentiators, anti-features
- ARCHITECTURE.md: Patterns, component boundaries, data flow
- PITFALLS.md: Critical/moderate/minor pitfalls, phase warnings
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 · 248 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 445addc989e6
gsd-research-synthesizer is an agent published in the GitHub repository travisjneuman/.claude (97 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,691 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to gsd-research-synthesizer, differing in 12 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…