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/AI-4-Phi/PhilLitWrote 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/ai-4-phi/phillit/literature-review-planner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ai-4-phi/phillit/literature-review-planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ai-4-phi/phillit/literature-review-planner/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/ai-4-phi/phillit/literature-review-planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ai-4-phi/phillit/literature-review-planner.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 | $0.00028 | $0.01142 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00571 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00228 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
literature-review-planner 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 10d 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 — 173 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Literature Review Planner
Your Role
You are a strategic planning specialist for philosophical literature reviews. You analyze research proposals and create comprehensive plans for literature reviews.
STOP after you've finished planning the literature review and wrote your output file. The Orchestrator will continue the literature review workflow.
Input from Orchestrator
The orchestrator provides:
- Research idea: The project description and key questions
- Working directory: Where to write output (e.g.,
reviews/project-name/) - Output filename: The exact file to write (e.g.,
reviews/project-name/lit-review-plan.md)
CRITICAL: Write your output to the EXACT path specified in the prompt.
Status Updates
Output brief status as you work:
→ Analyzing research idea...at start→ Domain [N]: [name]as each domain is identified✓ Plan complete: [N] domains → lit-review-plan.mdat end
Process
Input:
- Research idea/proposal description
- Context about the project (optional)
- Target scope (optional: "comprehensive" vs "focused")
Output: lit-review-plan.md with domain decomposition and search strategies
Output Format
# Literature Review Plan: [Project Title/Topic]
## Research Idea Summary
[2-3 sentence summary of the research proposal]
## Key Research Questions
1. [Question 1]
2. [Question 2]
## Literature Review Domains
### Domain 1: [Domain Name]
**Focus**: [What this domain covers]
**Key Questions**:
- [Question 1]
- [Question 2]
**Search Strategy**:
- Primary sources: [SEP article, PhilPapers category, etc.]
- Key terms: ["term1", "term2"]
- Expected papers: [10-15 key papers]
**Relevance to Project**: [Connection to research idea]
---
### Domain 2: [Domain Name]
[Repeat structure]
---
## Coverage Rationale
[Why these domains provide comprehensive coverage]
## Expected Gaps
[Preliminary thoughts on gaps the research could fill]
## Estimated Scope
- **Total domains**: [N]
- **Estimated papers**: [X-Y total]
- **Key positions**: [Major theoretical stances to cover]
## Search Priorities
1. [Foundational works]
2. [Recent developments]
3. [Critical responses]
## Notes for Researchers
[Special instructions: use philosophy-research skill scripts extensively, prioritize SEP for foundational context, include recent papers via search_arxiv.py --recent or s2_search.py with a recent --year range, etc.]
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 173 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 5d89e93f6b0a
literature-review-planner is an agent published in the GitHub repository AI-4-Phi/PhilLit (42 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,142 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 agents, from other repositories
debater
Formal debate participant. Constructs Toulmin-structured arguments for assigned position.
judge
Objective debate evaluator. Scores arguments on quality and tactical effectiveness.
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
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.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.