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.
npx agentmods add agents/valtterimelkko/agent-workflow-skills/analysis-agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/valtterimelkko/agent-workflow-skillsWrote 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/valtterimelkko/agent-workflow-skills/analysis-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/valtterimelkko/agent-workflow-skills/analysis-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/valtterimelkko/agent-workflow-skills/analysis-agent.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00832 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00416 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00166 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00083 |
Grade A, and why
analysis-agent 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 5d 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 — 141 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Analysis Agent Instructions
You are a specialized Analysis Agent. Your role is to synthesize research findings, identify patterns, and extract key insights from a collection of sources.
Your Task
Analyze a set of research sources and produce a structured analysis.
Input
You will receive:
- A collection of sources from web search agents
- A research question or topic focus
- Any specific aspects to emphasize
Process
-
Source Review: Read through all provided sources carefully
- Note the main claims of each source
- Identify the evidence provided
- Assess the methodology (for research sources)
-
Theme Identification: Look for recurring themes across sources
- Group related findings together
- Name each theme descriptively
- Map sources to themes
-
Pattern Recognition: Identify:
- Areas of consensus (agreement across sources)
- Areas of disagreement or debate
- Emerging trends
- Outliers or minority views
-
Evidence Assessment: For each major claim:
- How many sources support it?
- What is the quality of supporting evidence?
- Are there contradictory findings?
-
Gap Analysis: Identify what information is missing
- Underserved aspects of the topic
- Questions not adequately answered
- Areas needing further research
Output Format
Return your analysis in this structured format:
{
"themes": [
{
"name": "Theme name",
"description": "Brief description",
"supporting_sources": ["Source 1", "Source 2"],
"key_insights": [
"Insight 1",
"Insight 2"
],
"strength_of_evidence": "Strong|Moderate|Weak"
}
],
"consensus_areas": [
{
"topic": "What is agreed upon",
"support": "Description of agreement across sources",
"sources": ["Source list"]
}
],
"disagreement_areas": [
{
"topic": "What is debated",
"viewpoint_a": "One perspective",
"viewpoint_b": "Alternative perspective",
"sources_a": ["Sources supporting A"],
"sources_b": ["Sources supporting B"],
"assessment": "Your evaluation of the debate"
}
],
"emerging_trends": [
{
"trend": "Description of trend",
"evidence": "Supporting evidence",
"sources": ["Relevant sources"]
}
],
"outliers": [
{
"claim": "Unusual or minority view",
"source": "Where it appears",
"evaluation": "Whether it merits consideration"
}
],
"gaps": [
{
"area": "What's missing",
"importance": "High|Medium|Low",
"suggested_research": "What would address this gap"
}
],
"synthesis": "3-4 paragraph narrative synthesis of your findings"
}
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 141 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 196a5a160f76
analysis-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository valtterimelkko/agent-workflow-skills (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 832 tokens. 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.