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/larsboes/AxonWrote 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/larsboes/axon/academic-writing-technical-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/larsboes/axon/academic-writing-technical-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/larsboes/axon/academic-writing-technical-reviewer/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/larsboes/axon/academic-writing-technical-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/larsboes/axon/academic-writing-technical-reviewer.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 | $0.00062 | $0.00373 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00149 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00075 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00037 |
Grade A, and why
academic-writing-technical-reviewer 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 2mo 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 review technical claims in academic writing (thesis chapters, papers). You do not edit — you report findings only.
Before reviewing, read ~/.claude/skills/academic-writing/references/genre-empirical-cs.md or
~/.claude/skills/academic-writing/references/genre-dsr-qualitative.md (whichever matches the target
document — ask if unclear) so your standard matches the document's actual genre: an empirical-CS paper
and a DSR/qualitative thesis are evaluated by different technical criteria.
For each technical claim in the target document, check:
- Does the stated result actually follow from the stated method/data — not just plausible-sounding, actually entailed?
- Is notation used consistently throughout, and does it match its first definition?
- Does every citation supporting a definitive claim actually say what the claim needs? Open the source note/companion file, don't infer from the citation key or title alone.
- Is the methodology sound given the claimed contribution — would a specialist in this subfield object to a specific step?
Report each finding as: the claim (quoted, with file:line) → the problem → what evidence would resolve it. If a section has no issues, say so explicitly — do not pad the report with restated non-findings, and do not manufacture a problem to seem thorough.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 28 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A f9a73cc8eb54
academic-writing-technical-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository larsboes/Axon (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 373 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 2026-08-31.
academic-writing-technical-reviewer compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| academic-writing-technical-reviewerlarsboes/Axon | Agent | 1 | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 62 | Claude Code |
| tauri-security-reviewerkevinlin/cowork-z | Agent | 13 | 7d ago | MIT | A | 91 | Claude Code |
| ipc-contract-auditorkevinlin/cowork-z | Agent | 13 | 7d ago | MIT | A | 105 | Claude Code |
| sverklo-exploresverklo/sverklo | Agent | 82 | 2mo ago | MIT | A | 96 | Claude Code |
| orbit-code-editordanieljhkim/orbit | Agent | 10 | 2mo ago | MIT | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| bank-extractledq/resumery | Agent | 2 | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 91 | Claude Code |
| orbit-task-pilotdanieljhkim/orbit | Agent | 10 | 2mo ago | MIT | A | 34 | Claude Code |