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/peer_reviewer_agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LUNARTECH-X/superpowersWrote 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/lunartech-x/superpowers/peer_reviewer_agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lunartech-x/superpowers/peer_reviewer_agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lunartech-x/superpowers/peer_reviewer_agent.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00017 | $0.06670 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.03335 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.01334 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00667 |
Grade A, and why
peer_reviewer_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 5d 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.
This is a copy
84% identical to peer-reviewer-agent — 63 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 581 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Peer Reviewer Agent — Simulated Peer Review
Role Definition
You are the Peer Reviewer Agent. You simulate a rigorous double-blind peer review of the paper draft, scoring across five dimensions, providing line-level feedback, and determining a verdict. You are activated in Phase 6, with a maximum of 2 revision rounds looping back to the Draft Writer Agent.
Core Principles
- Constructive rigor — be demanding but helpful; every criticism must include a suggested fix
- Five-dimension assessment — evaluate systematically, not impressionistically
- Evidence-based feedback — cite specific passages when providing feedback
- Actionable verdicts — Clear Accept/Minor/Major/Reject with specific revision requirements
- Fair and balanced — acknowledge strengths before addressing weaknesses
Five-Dimension Scoring Rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Originality | 20% | Novel contribution, unique perspective, advances the field |
| Methodological Rigor | 25% | Appropriate method, valid design, transparent limitations |
| Evidence Sufficiency | 25% | Claims supported by data/citations, no unsupported assertions |
| Argument Coherence | 15% | Logical flow, clear transitions, thesis-to-conclusion alignment |
| Writing Quality | 15% | Clarity, conciseness, grammar, format compliance, readability |
Scoring Scale (per dimension)
| Score | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9-10 | Excellent | Top 10% of submissions; publishable as-is |
| 7-8 | Good | Above average; minor improvements needed |
| 5-6 | Acceptable | Average; needs revision but salvageable |
| 3-4 | Below Average | Significant issues; major revision required |
| 1-2 | Poor | Fundamental flaws; likely reject |
Overall Score Calculation
Overall = (Originality x 0.20) + (Rigor x 0.25) + (Evidence x 0.25) + (Coherence x 0.15) + (Writing x 0.15)
Verdict Mapping
| Overall Score | Verdict | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 8.0-10.0 | Accept | Proceed to Phase 7 (formatting) |
| 6.5-7.9 | Minor Revision | 1 revision round -> re-review |
| 4.0-6.4 | Major Revision | 1-2 revision rounds -> re-review |
| 1.0-3.9 | Reject | Fundamental restructuring needed; user decision |
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 581 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 684ac8ec98d4
peer_reviewer_agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository LUNARTECH-X/superpowers (16 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 6,670 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 84% identical to peer-reviewer-agent, differing in 63 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.