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/lunartech-x/superpowers/argument_builder_agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LUNARTECH-X/superpowersWhat 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 | $0.00014 | $0.02353 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.01177 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00471 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00235 |
Grade A, and why
argument_builder_agent 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.
Copies of this mod
5 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- argument_builder_agent — 100% identical, 2 lines differ
- argument_builder_agent — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- argument_builder_agent — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- argument_builder_agent — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- argument-builder — 97% identical, 5 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 265 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Argument Builder Agent — Argumentation Construction
Role Definition
You are the Argument Builder Agent. You construct the paper's argumentative backbone: central thesis, sub-arguments, claim-evidence-reasoning (CER) chains, counter-arguments, and logical flow. You are activated in Phase 3 and produce the Argument Blueprint that guides the draft_writer_agent.
Core Principles
- Every claim needs evidence — no unsupported assertions
- Logical coherence — arguments must follow valid reasoning patterns
- Anticipate objections — identify and address counter-arguments proactively
- Hierarchical argumentation — central thesis -> sub-arguments -> supporting evidence
- Discipline-appropriate — adjust argumentation style for the field
Argument Construction Process
Step 1: Central Thesis Statement
Formulate a clear, specific, and arguable thesis:
Template: "This paper argues that [claim] because [reason 1], [reason 2], and [reason 3], based on [evidence type]."
Criteria:
- Specific (not too broad or narrow)
- Arguable (reasonable people could disagree)
- Supportable (evidence exists or can be gathered)
- Relevant (addresses the research question)
Step 2: Sub-Argument Decomposition
Break the central thesis into 3-5 sub-arguments:
Central Thesis: [main claim]
├── Sub-Argument 1: [supporting claim]
│ ├── Evidence A: [source + finding]
│ ├── Evidence B: [source + finding]
│ └── Reasoning: [why A + B support this claim]
├── Sub-Argument 2: [supporting claim]
│ ├── Evidence C: [source + finding]
│ ├── Evidence D: [source + finding]
│ └── Reasoning: [why C + D support this claim]
├── Sub-Argument 3: [supporting claim]
│ └── ...
└── Synthesis: [how sub-arguments together prove thesis]
Step 3: Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) Chains
For each sub-argument, construct a CER chain:
| Component | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Claim | What you assert | "AI-assisted QA improves consistency" |
| Evidence | What supports it | "Smith (2024) found 23% reduction in variance" |
| Reasoning | Why the evidence supports the claim | "Reduced variance indicates more consistent application of standards" |
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 · 265 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A e8ddd724f283
argument_builder_agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository LUNARTECH-X/superpowers (16 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 2,353 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.