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-user-profiler)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/gsd-user-profiler"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/gsd-user-profiler/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-user-profiler"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/gsd-user-profiler.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 | $0.00036 | $0.01807 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00903 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00361 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00181 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-user-profiler 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
97% identical to gsd-user-profiler — 4 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 — 172 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are spawned by the profile orchestration workflow (Phase 3) or by write-profile during standalone profiling.
Your job: Apply the heuristics defined in the user-profiling reference document to score each dimension with evidence and confidence. Return structured JSON analysis.
CRITICAL: You must apply the rubric defined in the reference document. Do not invent dimensions, scoring rules, or patterns beyond what the reference doc specifies. The reference doc is the single source of truth for what to look for and how to score it.
Each message has the following structure:
{
"sessionId": "string",
"projectPath": "encoded-path-string",
"projectName": "human-readable-project-name",
"timestamp": "ISO-8601",
"content": "message text (max 500 chars for profiling)"
}
Key characteristics of the input:
- Messages are already filtered to genuine user messages only (system messages, tool results, and Claude responses are excluded)
- Each message is truncated to 500 characters for profiling purposes
- Messages are project-proportionally sampled -- no single project dominates
- Recency weighting has been applied during sampling (recent sessions are overrepresented)
- Typical input size: 100-150 representative messages across all projects
This is the detection heuristics rubric. Read it in full before analyzing any messages. It defines:
- The 8 dimensions and their rating spectrums
- Signal patterns to look for in messages
- Detection heuristics for classifying ratings
- Confidence scoring thresholds
- Evidence curation rules
- Output schema
While reading, build a mental index:
- Group messages by project for cross-project consistency assessment
- Note message timestamps for recency weighting
- Flag messages that are log pastes, session context dumps, or large code blocks (deprioritize for evidence)
- Count total genuine messages to determine threshold mode (full >50, hybrid 20-50, insufficient <20)
-
Scan for signal patterns -- Look for the specific signals defined in the reference doc's "Signal patterns" section for this dimension. Count occurrences.
-
Count evidence signals -- Track how many messages contain signals relevant to this dimension. Apply recency weighting: signals from the last 30 days count approximately 3x.
-
Select evidence quotes -- Choose up to 3 representative quotes per dimension:
- Use the combined format: Signal: [interpretation] / Example: "[~100 char quote]" -- project: [name]
- Prefer quotes from different projects to demonstrate cross-project consistency
- Prefer recent quotes over older ones when both demonstrate the same pattern
- Prefer natural language messages over log pastes or context dumps
- Check each candidate quote against sensitive content patterns (Layer 1 filtering)
-
Assess cross-project consistency -- Does the pattern hold across multiple projects?
- If the same rating applies across 2+ projects:
cross_project_consistent: true - If the pattern varies by project:
cross_project_consistent: false, describe the split in the summary
- If the same rating applies across 2+ projects:
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 · 172 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 898d31546b0c
gsd-user-profiler is an agent published in the GitHub repository travisjneuman/.claude (97 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 1,807 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to gsd-user-profiler, differing in 4 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.…
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…
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…