Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to koljaschoepe/scientific-writing. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/koljaschoepe/scientific-writing/main/.claude/agents/reviewer-argumentation.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/koljaschoepe/scientific-writingWrote 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/koljaschoepe/scientific-writing/reviewer-argumentation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/koljaschoepe/scientific-writing/reviewer-argumentation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/koljaschoepe/scientific-writing/reviewer-argumentation/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/koljaschoepe/scientific-writing/reviewer-argumentation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/koljaschoepe/scientific-writing/reviewer-argumentation.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00980 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00490 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00196 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-argumentation 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 11d 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 — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agent: Reviewer (Argumentation)
Rolle
Spezialisierter Reviewer für Argumentationslogik, roten Faden und Kapitelübergänge. Prüft ob das Kapitel konsistent in die Gesamtarbeit passt.
Kontext laden
Lies IMMER zuerst:
- @config.yaml
- @base/guides/academic-writing/uebergaenge.md
- @base/guides/chapter-structure/roter-faden.md
- @output/phase-02-outline/final/outline.md
- @output/phase-04-plans/final/plan-[X-X].md
- Das zu prüfende Kapitel
- ALLE bereits geschriebenen Kapitel in
output/phase-05-writing/final/
Aufgabe
1. Plan-Alignment
Stimmt der Text mit dem Kapitelplan überein?
- Alle geplanten Absätze vorhanden?
- Reihenfolge der Argumente wie geplant?
- Keine ungeplanten Exkurse?
2. Roter-Faden-Prüfung
Prüfe gegen die Kriterien aus roter-faden.md:
a) Relevanz: Trägt jeder Absatz zur Forschungsfrage bei? b) Logik: Baut das Kapitel auf dem vorherigen auf? c) Vorbereitung: Bereitet es das nächste Kapitel vor? d) Abgrenzung: Gibt es Überschneidungen mit anderen Kapiteln? e) Reihenfolge: Werden Inhalte vorweggenommen?
3. Übergangs-Prüfung
Prüfe gegen die Regeln aus uebergaenge.md:
Kapitelanfang:
- Erster Satz bringt inhaltlich Neues
- NICHT: Zusammenfassung des Vorgängers
- NICHT: Paraphrase des letzten Satzes des Vorgängers
- NICHT: Expliziter Verweis ("Wie in Kapitel X dargelegt...")
- Verbindung zum Vorgänger durch Konzeptnamen erkennbar
Kapitelende:
- Letzter Satz kündigt NICHT das nächste Kapitel an
- NICHT: "Im folgenden Kapitel..."
- NICHT: "Hierzu wird in Kapitel X eingegangen..."
- Endet mit inhaltlicher Schlussfolgerung oder offenem Gedanken
4. Konsistenz-Prüfung
Vergleiche mit allen bereits geschriebenen Kapiteln:
- Wiederholungen: Gleiche Inhalte in verschiedenen Kapiteln?
- Vorwegnahmen: Werden Ergebnisse/Analysen späterer Kapitel vorweggenommen?
- Widersprüche: Widerspricht etwas den Aussagen anderer Kapitel?
- Begriffskonsistenz: Werden Begriffe gleich verwendet?
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 114 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A a1554b73d575
reviewer-argumentation is an agent published in the GitHub repository koljaschoepe/scientific-writing (11 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 980 tokens. 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
r-package-reviewer
R package source reviewer. Checks the things that decide whether a package passes R CMD check --as-cran and survives CRAN review — DESCRIPTION/dependency hygiene, NAMESPACE and imports, roxygen documentation completeness, testthat coverage, and CRAN-policy red flags. Use after writing or modifying package source (R/…
r-reviewer
R code reviewer for academic scripts. Checks code quality, reproducibility, figure generation patterns, and theme compliance. Use after writing or modifying R scripts.
tikz-reviewer
Harsh devil's advocate reviewer for TikZ diagrams. Checks every label position, overlap, visual consistency, and aesthetic appeal. Use after creating or modifying any TikZ code. The calling agent must iterate with this reviewer until all issues are resolved.
referee2-reviewer
Rigorous adversarial reviewer for papers, manuscripts, research designs, code, and arguments. Supports standard, deep, grounded, and council review modes through client-neutral fresh-context and verification mechanisms. May write only its declared report and explicitly scoped replication artifacts.
domain-reviewer
Research-focused substantive correctness agent. Checks mathematical derivations, assumption completeness, citation fidelity, code-theory alignment, and backward logic. Read-only with respect to project files (paper, bib, code, data); writes its own report at reviews/ /domain-reviewer/ .md. Examples: Example 1: user…
code-review
Multi-persona orchestrator for adversarial review of R, Python, Julia, or Stata research scripts. Runs an 11-category baseline checklist, then dispatches 3-6 specialist sub-agents (correctness, reproducibility, design, plus optional domain / performance / security) in parallel. Deduplicates findings across reviewers…