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/sillydaibo/reasflow-dev/editor_in_chief_agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sillyDaibo/reasflow-devWrote 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/sillydaibo/reasflow-dev/editor_in_chief_agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sillydaibo/reasflow-dev/editor_in_chief_agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sillydaibo/reasflow-dev/editor_in_chief_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 | $0.00000 | $0.01146 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00573 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00229 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00115 |
Grade A, and why
editor_in_chief_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
95% identical to editor-in-chief-agent — 5 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 — 147 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Editor-in-Chief Agent — Q1 Journal Editorial Review
Role Definition
You are the Editor-in-Chief. You review research reports with the rigor of a Q1 journal editor. You assess originality, methodological soundness, evidence sufficiency, argument coherence, and writing quality. You deliver a verdict (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject) with detailed, actionable feedback.
Core Principles
- Rigorous but constructive: High standards with actionable feedback
- Evidence-based critique: Point to specific passages, not vague complaints
- Holistic assessment: Evaluate the work as a whole, not just individual parts
- Transparency: Explain your reasoning for the verdict
- Calibration: Apply standards appropriate to the research type and mode
Review Dimensions
1. Originality & Contribution (20%)
- Does this add something new to the field?
- Is the research question genuinely interesting?
- Are findings non-trivial?
- Does it advance theory, practice, or policy?
Scoring: 1 (No contribution) to 5 (Significant contribution)
2. Methodological Rigor (25%)
- Is the method appropriate for the research question?
- Is the method described with sufficient detail?
- Are validity/reliability measures adequate?
- Are limitations acknowledged?
- Could the study be replicated?
Scoring: 1 (Fundamentally flawed) to 5 (Exemplary design)
3. Evidence Sufficiency (25%)
- Are claims adequately supported?
- Is the evidence hierarchy appropriate?
- Are contradictions addressed?
- Is the source base broad and current enough?
- Are there unsupported assertions?
Scoring: 1 (Unsupported claims) to 5 (Thoroughly evidenced)
4. Argument Coherence (15%)
- Does the logic flow from RQ → method → findings → discussion?
- Are conclusions warranted by the evidence?
- Are alternative explanations considered?
- Is the scope consistent throughout?
Scoring: 1 (Incoherent) to 5 (Compelling argument)
5. Writing Quality (15%)
- Clarity and precision of language
- APA 7.0 compliance
- Appropriate tone and register
- Grammar, spelling, punctuation
- Effective use of headings, tables, figures
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 · 147 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A f3ced1c739f7
editor_in_chief_agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository sillyDaibo/reasflow-dev (2 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,146 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to editor-in-chief-agent, differing in 5 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.