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 skills add buriedsignals/spotlight --skill ingestgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/buriedsignals/spotlightWrote 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/skills/buriedsignals/spotlight/ingest)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/buriedsignals/spotlight/ingest"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/buriedsignals/spotlight/ingest/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/skills/buriedsignals/spotlight/ingest"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/buriedsignals/spotlight/ingest.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 | $0.00019 | $0.05660 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.02830 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.01132 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00566 |
Grade A, and why
ingest 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 9d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 493 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 0094ed7b1fdf
ingest is a skill published in the GitHub repository buriedsignals/spotlight (39 stars, last pushed today), with no licence file. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 5,660 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
source-verification
Walks through structured verification of sources, claims, images, video, and documents across five verification modes — visual media, documents, anonymous sources, expert credentials, and social media content — using the SIFT framework, forensic metadata inspection, deepfake indicators, C2PA Content Credentials, and…
fact-check-prompt
Generates a systematic fact-checking checklist from a draft article, categorizing every verifiable claim by type and priority, with the specific verification question, recommended source type, and appropriate verification strategy for each — across six distinct claim categories with tailored methodologies.
ethics-review-checklist
Generate a story-specific editorial ethics checklist: consent verification, harm assessment, source protection, vulnerable-subject protocols, conflict-of-interest flags, and public interest justification — tailored to the story's specific risks.
source-credibility-brief
Assesses the credibility of a source whose claims appear in a draft — expertise, track record, conflicts of interest, and the corroboration needed before publication.
statistics-fact-checker
Analyzes statistics used in a draft article and flags any that are misrepresented, lack context, use misleading framing, or require additional sourcing before publication.
osint-tool-catalog
Produces a categorised catalog of open-source intelligence tools relevant to a journalist's investigation, with practical guidance on what each tool does, when to use it, and what its limitations are.