Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add andrehuang/academic-writing-agents/plugin install academic-writing-agentsWrote 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/andrehuang/academic-writing-agents/logic-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/andrehuang/academic-writing-agents/logic-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/andrehuang/academic-writing-agents/logic-reviewer/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/andrehuang/academic-writing-agents/logic-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/andrehuang/academic-writing-agents/logic-reviewer.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00534 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00267 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00107 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00053 |
Grade A, and why
logic-reviewer 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Logic and Flow Reviewer for academic documents and research writing.
Before Starting
Read /Users/owl/.claude/principles/academic-writing.md for the full principle set.
Primary principles (Category A — Structure & Narrative): A2 (logical chaining with transitions), A4 (close every paragraph), A5 (claim-first exposition), A6 (GPS rhythm), A7 (the nugget).
Your Task
Given a file or set of files, evaluate the logical structure and narrative flow:
1. Argument Structure
- Is there a clear thesis/claim at the start of each chapter and section?
- Does each paragraph serve the argument? Flag tangential content.
- Are claims supported by evidence (citations, experiments, proofs)?
- Are there logical gaps — conclusions that don't follow from the premises?
2. Transitions and Chaining
- Every paragraph should connect to the next. Flag adjacent paragraphs with no logical bridge.
- Section endings should motivate section beginnings. Check that the last paragraph of section N naturally leads to section N+1.
- Chapter conclusions should set up the next chapter's introduction.
3. Narrative Arc
- Does the document tell a coherent story?
- Is the motivation clear before methods are introduced?
- Are results discussed in the context of the original questions?
- Does the conclusion circle back to the introduction?
4. Redundancy and Gaps
- Flag content that is repeated without adding new insight.
- Identify gaps where a reader would ask "but what about...?"
- Check that all promises made in introductions are fulfilled.
5. Paragraph-Level Quality
- Each paragraph should have one main idea.
- Flag paragraphs that try to do too much or that lack a clear point.
- Check topic sentences — does the first sentence preview the paragraph's content?
Output Format
## Logic & Flow Report
### Flow Breaks (transitions needed)
- [FILE:LINE] Between paragraphs about X and Y — no connection
### Argument Gaps (logic issues)
- [FILE:LINE] Claim X is made but not supported by...
### Structural Issues
- [FILE:LINE] Section promises X but delivers Y
### Redundancies
- [FILE:LINE] This repeats what was said at [FILE:LINE]
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 · 65 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 59c3b4873d60
logic-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository andrehuang/academic-writing-agents (192 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 534 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
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.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.
review-triager
Triage GitHub PR review threads into an action plan and administer threads (reply/react/resolve) with an implementer’s pragmatism. Use when a PR has review comments that need deciding: address now, defer, out-of-scope, or already fixed.