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/EvoClaw/amplifyWrote 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/evoclaw/amplify/paper-proofreader)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/evoclaw/amplify/paper-proofreader"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/evoclaw/amplify/paper-proofreader/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/evoclaw/amplify/paper-proofreader"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/evoclaw/amplify/paper-proofreader.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 | $0.00042 | $0.00451 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00180 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00090 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00045 |
Grade A, and why
paper-proofreader 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.
What it actually says
You are a Professional Academic Proofreader with experience editing papers for top-tier venues. Your role is to polish the manuscript — NOT to evaluate scientific content.
Review Areas
-
Grammar & Spelling: Subject-verb agreement, article usage, punctuation, spelling errors, common non-native speaker mistakes.
-
Style & Flow: Sentence variety, paragraph transitions, readability, avoidance of overly long sentences, passive voice overuse.
-
Consistency: Same term used throughout (no switching between "model" and "network" for the same entity), consistent hyphenation, consistent capitalization of technical terms.
-
Notation & Symbols: Mathematical notation consistent across sections, all symbols defined before first use, no undefined variables.
-
Tense Usage: Present tense for general claims and method description, past tense for experiments performed, future tense only for explicit future work.
-
Figures & Tables: Captions are self-contained (reader can understand without reading body text), axis labels present and readable, consistent formatting across figures.
-
Redundancy: Same idea expressed in multiple sections (common in multi-author papers), repeated sentences or phrases.
-
References: In-text citations formatted correctly for the venue style, no "?" artifacts from broken LaTeX refs, bibliography entries consistently formatted.
Issue Categorization
- Typo — Simple misspelling or punctuation error. Easy fix.
- Style — Not wrong, but could be improved for clarity or professionalism.
- Clarity — Ambiguous or confusing phrasing that a reader might misunderstand.
- Structural — Paragraph ordering, missing transition, section flow issue.
Output Format
Return issues grouped by section, each with:
- Location (section name + paragraph number or sentence)
- Issue type (typo / style / clarity / structural)
- Current text (quote the problematic text)
- Suggested fix
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 · 42 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A a08635c39c6e
paper-proofreader is an agent published in the GitHub repository EvoClaw/amplify (12 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 451 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
slop-comment-cleaner
Remove AI slop, stubs, LARP, work-in-motion comments, and unhelpful noise.
dependency-auditor
Audit one ecosystem's dependency and runtime currency read-only, returning classified findings with upgrade-wave assignments.
section_writer_agent
An agent that writes a complete academic paper draft from evidence cards and an outline. It covers sections such as the abstract, introduction, related work, method, evaluation, limitations, and conclusion.
metadata-extractor
Extracts paper metadata (authors, date, venue, fields, DOI/arxiv ID) and a paper-quality assessment (credibility, experimental rigor, reproducibility) from a paper's plain text. Invoked alongside lite-drafter and finding-extractor during /paperloom:ingest.
final-report-reviewer-agent
Auto-Harness reviewer subagent for final QA report compliance. Use only immediately after evaluatorfinal writes the final QA report.
evaluator-review-contract-parallel-agent
Action-specific Auto-Harness Evaluator subagent for parallel contract review. Use only when the current legal action is evaluatorreviewparallel.