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 synaptiai/synapti-marketplace --skill finding-reconciliationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/synaptiai/synapti-marketplaceWrote 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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/finding-reconciliation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/finding-reconciliation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/finding-reconciliation/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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/finding-reconciliation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/finding-reconciliation.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 | $0.00150 | $0.01979 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00060 | $0.00792 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00396 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00198 |
Grade A, and why
finding-reconciliation 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 1mo 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 — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Finding Reconciliation
Phase 9. Turns three independent findings tables into one adjudicated ledger, then drives repair and re-audit.
Iron Law
PUBLISH THE FINDINGS TABLE BEFORE ANY REPAIR, AND RE-AUDIT IN FRESH CONTEXTS AFTER. A finding seen by one pass is still a finding.
A package that quietly fixes what it found and reports only the clean end state has destroyed its own audit trail. The pre-repair table is the evidence that verification happened.
Never loaded by a verifier
This skill must not appear in any pass agent's skills: list. If a verifier could load the merge logic, it would reason about corroboration and drift toward the consensus it expects the other passes to reach — which is the correlated-error failure the whole three-pass architecture exists to prevent.
tests/agent-independence.test.sh enforces this mechanically. It is a structural guarantee, not a convention.
Order of operations
- Collect raw. Read each pass's table from
.dossier/runs/<id>/pass-{A,B,C}.mdverbatim. Do not edit, do not summarize, do not reorder. - Normalize to the canonical field set.
- Deduplicate by
(location_normalized, claim_hash). Keep the highest severity. Merge the problem descriptions when they add different context — do not discard the second one's reasoning. - Stamp corroboration as
N/3. - Detect disagreement and promote it.
- Publish the pre-repair table. This is a commit point, not a draft.
- Split into agent-repairable and
needs-owner. - Apply the repairable ones, Critical and High first.
- Re-run every check a correction touched.
- Re-audit in fresh contexts when a correction materially changed architecture, product behaviour, data handling, security, reliability, or a public claim.
Corroboration does not rank
3/3 means three lenses independently saw it. 1/3 means one lens looked in the right place. Neither is a confidence score.
A 1/3 finding is never downgraded for being lonely. The passes have different lenses by design — pass C is the only one simulating a new engineer's first contribution, so a broken onboarding command should be 1/3, and it is no less real for that. Downgrading by vote count converts three specialized reviewers into a majority-vote committee and throws away the specialization.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 126 lines · 150 tokens per session scan A 12d643def162
finding-reconciliation is a skill published in the GitHub repository synaptiai/synapti-marketplace (7 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 150 tokens to every session and 1,979 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
plan-roadmap
Create or update a prioritized product roadmap with phased milestones.
step4-archive-spec
Archive a completed spec — moves it to specs-archived and blocks agent access.
harvest-findings
Composable operation that harvests inline manual-test findings from an epic's test plan, captures them to the backlog, and turns in-scope ones into a remediation story. Called at the manual-test-pass boundary by /epic-flywheel and /retrospective. Directly invocable as /harvest-findings {N}.
accessibility-testing
WCAG compliance testing and accessibility quality assurance workflows for iOS apps. Use when validating accessibility labels, testing VoiceOver compatibility, checking contrast ratios, or ensuring WCAG 2.1 compliance. Covers accessibility tree analysis, semantic validation, and automated accessibility testing patterns.
simulator-workflows
Use the executesimulatorcommand MCP tool for all simulator management.
ui-automation-workflows
Accessibility-first UI automation using IDB. Query accessibility tree (fast, 50 tokens) before screenshots (slow, 170 tokens). Use when automating simulator interactions, tapping UI elements, finding buttons, or testing user flows. Covers idb-ui-describe, idb-ui-tap, idb-ui-find-element patterns.