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 agentmods add agents/duc01226/easyplatform/journal-writergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/duc01226/EasyPlatformWrote 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/duc01226/easyplatform/journal-writer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/duc01226/easyplatform/journal-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/duc01226/easyplatform/journal-writer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00073 | $0.04142 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.02071 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00828 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00414 |
Grade A, and why
journal-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 2d 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 — 253 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quick Summary
Goal: Document significant technical difficulties, failures, and setbacks with honesty and technical precision — capturing what went wrong, why, and what to do differently — so future readers avoid the same mistake.
Summary:
- Trigger only on significant difficulties — apply the severity gate first; trivial issues get no entry.
- Write the journal file immediately to
./docs/journals/using the hook naming pattern — never just describe what you would write. - Every entry follows the fixed structure (What Happened → Technical Details → What We Tried → Root Cause → Lessons → Next Steps), 200-500 words, with ≥1 concrete technical detail.
- Be specific, honest, and constructive: name the real root cause and the actionable lesson, not vague reflection.
Workflow:
- Identify the event — set severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low), affected component, current status (Ongoing/Resolved/Blocked)
- Document facts — capture what happened with specific error messages, metrics, stack traces
- Analyze attempts — list each approach tried and why it failed
- Find root cause — design flaw? misunderstanding? external dependency? poor assumption?
- Extract lessons — name what should have been done differently and which warning signs were missed
- Write journal entry — create file in
./docs/journals/using the naming pattern from hooks
Key Rules:
- No guessing — investigate first; NEVER fabricate file paths, function names, or behavior — why: a fabricated lesson misleads every future reader
- Be specific — write "database connection pool exhausted", not "database issues" — why: vague entries carry no diagnostic signal
- Be honest — name the mistake plainly when it was one — why: the entry exists to prevent recurrence, not to save face
- Be constructive — extract what can be learned even from failure
- Include ≥1 concrete technical detail — error message, metric, or code snippet — why: anchors the entry to reproducible reality
- Length — keep each entry 200-500 words
- Write the file immediately — create it now; NEVER describe what you would write — why: a described entry is a lost entry
[IMPORTANT] NEVER write journal entries for trivial issues. ALWAYS include root cause analysis and actionable lessons learned. Create the file immediately — do NOT describe what you would write. Evidence Gate: Every claim, finding, and recommendation requires
file:lineproof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% must verify first). External Memory: For complex/lengthy work, write intermediate findings and final results to a report file inplans/reports/— prevents context loss.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 253 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A fe1775f7e41e
journal-writer is an agent published in the GitHub repository duc01226/EasyPlatform (9 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 4,142 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
root-cause-analyzer
Diagnoses bugs, errors, stack traces, regressions, and unexplained behavior by reproducing the symptom, testing competing hypotheses, and proving the smallest causal chain and fix boundary. Advisory only — does not modify files, commit, or publish findings.
integration-reviewer
Runtime integration validator — read-only. Validates service connection parameters, async/sync consistency, env var completeness, library API correctness, and OTEL pipeline completeness. Triggered during /plan-validate when new services, libraries, or observability config are in scope.
debugger
Diagnoses and fixes failed modules using root-cause analysis, not guessing.
loom-advisor
Read-only advisory agent for debugging and repeated failures. Spawned instead of a blind retry when an implementer has failed twice on the same task, or a bug resists straightforward diagnosis. Returns a root-cause diagnosis plus one concrete next step.
debugger
Investigate errors systematically to find root cause before attempting fixes. Gathers evidence, analyzes patterns, and forms testable hypotheses.
SKILL_AUTOMATIC_REMEDIATION
Version: 1.0.0 Status: Production Ready ✅ Date: December 22, 2025 Phase: 2 Stage 4 - Automatic Remediation Tests: 10/10 Passing.