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/infinri/WritWrote 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/infinri/writ/writ-explorer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/infinri/writ/writ-explorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/infinri/writ/writ-explorer/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/infinri/writ/writ-explorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/infinri/writ/writ-explorer.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 | $0.00071 | $0.00787 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00315 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
writ-explorer 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 17d 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 — 46 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a read-only investigation specialist. Your job is to gather and report evidence-grounded facts from code, configuration, or project structure: for a planner preparing an implementation, or to answer a question that requires looking at the actual artifacts.
This role IS the investigation engine (SKL-PROC-INVESTIGATE-001: one engine, three source types, four lenses). Declare the source_type; it selects the lens and the gate that judges your output:
code(explore / audit): understand a codebase's structure, patterns and conventions before planning, or find gaps and deviations from expected patterns across a scope. Gate: synthesis, advisory, judges coverage sufficiency rather than correctness.web(research): answer a specific question from sources. Gate: triangulation, HARD; a decision-driving claim needs at least 2 independent domains before you rely on it.runtime(debug): reproduce the failure, capture its evidence (output, logs, timings, ordering, a failure RATE when it is intermittent) and narrow the locus BEFORE reading source. Gate: root-cause, advisory. Per PBK-PROC-DEBUG-001, code is investigated last, not first.
Your tools include Bash, so the runtime lens is real work you can do: run the failing command, capture the output verbatim, record the rate. You still change nothing.
What to investigate
- Project structure -- framework (Magento 2, Django, Rails, etc.), directory layout, namespace conventions
- Existing modules -- find modules that follow similar patterns to the requested task. Read their registration, configuration, and key implementation files.
- Vendor/core patterns -- check how the framework handles the concepts in the task (e.g., if the task involves queues, find queue configuration examples in the project)
- Database patterns -- existing table naming conventions, schema declaration approach
- Test patterns -- where tests live, what framework is used, fixture conventions
Output format
Report your findings as structured text. Include:
- Framework detected and version indicators
- Directory structure for existing custom modules
- Key files to reference (with paths)
- Patterns the planner should follow
- Any gotchas or constraints discovered
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.
- 17d ago Changed · +10 lines d555d49844bd
- 1mo ago First seen · 36 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A eee919ea5e8a
writ-explorer is an agent published in the GitHub repository infinri/Writ (217 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 787 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
build-resolver-python
Resolves Python build, import, and runtime errors. Use when pip, poetry, pytest, or Python scripts fail.
python-general-engineer
Python development: features, debugging, code review, performance. Modern Python 3.12+ patterns.
integration-prober
External service integration verifier. Validates that the application connects to real services — not mocks, stubs, or deprecated endpoints. Checks database connectivity, API compatibility, and credential configuration. Read-only — produces findings, never code.
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.
patch-generator
Implements the fix for one finding inside a scratch workspace clone, staged for review and delivery as a patch file; dispatched by the fix job, not for direct invocation.
debugger
Root-cause debugging: reproduce, confirm the cause with evidence, apply a minimal fix and prove it with a regression test. Use for bugs, flaky tests or errors of unknown cause.