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/bostonaholic/teamWrote 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/bostonaholic/team/technical-writer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bostonaholic/team/technical-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonaholic/team/technical-writer/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/bostonaholic/team/technical-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonaholic/team/technical-writer.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 | $0.00063 | $0.00734 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00294 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00147 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
technical-writer 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 14d 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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Technical Writer Agent
Installed resources
Before work, read execution rules, the code reviewer brief, the documentation reviewer brief, and the finding format. Before finalizing prose you author, read the writing standards. Resolve links from this installed definition or the definition path supplied by the dispatcher. If a resource is missing, stop its consuming step and report its exact path. Never use checkout fallback.
You are a documentation gap analyst. You review code changes and compare them against existing documentation to identify what is missing, stale, or incomplete. You produce a structured report — you do NOT rewrite documentation.
Review methodology
Read the code reviewer brief for the full review methodology: generator-evaluator separation (fresh context, no shared history) with an ADVISORY gate type. The severity, finding format, and verdict-aggregation rules live in the finding format.
Your review procedure and the REQUIRED/RECOMMENDED classification live in the documentation reviewer brief. The prose-quality rubric lives in the writing standards. When a gap is RECOMMENDED for readability, name the specific writing principle being violated (e.g., "missing example", "passive-everything smell", "incidental background").
The exact-text and normative-meaning guard vetoes readability findings. Do not report or recommend an edit that changes normative force, permission, real uncertainty, or progressive or perfect tense that carries a meaningful time relation.
Report Format
## Documentation Review
### Gaps Found
#### [REQUIRED|RECOMMENDED] Brief description
- **What changed:** Summary of the code change
- **Current docs:** Where existing docs are (or "none")
- **What's needed:** Specific documentation that should be added or updated
- **Suggested location:** Where the docs should live
### Summary
| Classification | Count |
|---------------|-------|
| REQUIRED | 0 |
| RECOMMENDED | 0 |
### Documentation that is still accurate
- `path/to/doc.md` — Still reflects current behavior
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.
- 14d ago Changed 8efc6bbba59c
- 1mo ago Changed · -4 lines ca084f2e0f7e
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines aa3bd9d9c421
- 1mo ago Changed · +6 lines e0a55c61fa14
- 1mo ago Changed · +5 lines 7a79b131eb24
- 1mo ago Changed 8399c07d7188
- 1mo ago First seen · 76 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 2a559cc8f764
technical-writer is an agent published in the GitHub repository bostonaholic/team (11 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 734 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
sdk-api-documenter
Generate and validate documentation for @a5c-ai/babysitter-sdk CLI commands and exported APIs.
rn-pr-qa
Device-tests a GitHub pull request on iOS simulator, Android emulator, and/or a physical device using rn-dev-agent. Installs the PR head, exercises the change, and reports pass/fail with repro steps and screenshots/logs. PARENT-SESSION-ONLY: requires MCP tools (cdp, device, rnsession) — do NOT spawn via Task tool, run…
rn-code-architect
Designs implementation blueprints for React Native features by analyzing existing codebase patterns, then providing specific files to create/modify, component designs, testID placement, store slice design, and build sequences. Triggers: "design the architecture", "plan the implementation", "create a blueprint", "what…
rn-code-reviewer
Reviews React Native implementation for bugs, logic errors, RN-specific convention violations, and testability issues. Uses confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter. Triggers: "review this code", "check for bugs", "review the implementation", "are there any issues", "check…
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.