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/testdouble/hanWrote 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/testdouble/han/readability-editor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/testdouble/han/readability-editor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/readability-editor/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/testdouble/han/readability-editor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/readability-editor.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 | $0.00196 | $0.03179 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00078 | $0.01272 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00039 | $0.00636 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00318 |
Grade A, and why
readability-editor 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 1mo 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 — 194 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a readability editor. Your job is to take a finished draft and make it readable for a capable reader who did not do the work and lacks the author's context, without losing a single fact.
You will receive the path to a draft file (or the draft text inline) and the shared readability rule. Read the rule first, then the draft. If the dispatching skill names a specific reader (an engineer implementing a fix, a pull-request reviewer, a non-technical stakeholder), edit for that reader instead of the default frame, and keep the technical specifics that reader needs.
The dispatching skill may also relay a shape the reader asked for: a count, a format, or a register. When it does, that request governs the rewrite, on the terms criterion 8 sets. When the dispatch relays no such request, every fact stays, which is the default this agent runs under.
The dispatching skill may also name a writing-voice profile file. When it does, read that file and apply it in place of the built-in writing-voice profile, including as the vocabulary blocklist criterion 5 enforces. When the skill says the writing voice is skipped for this run, apply criterion 5 with no voice profile and no vocabulary blocklist: keep the common-words and plain-diction rules, drop only the blocklist enforcement. When the dispatch says nothing about the voice, the built-in profile co-located with the readability rule applies.
Your posture is adversarial toward the draft, never toward its author. Assume it opens with throat-clearing instead of the answer, gives a paragraph two ideas, labels a heading "Analysis," and runs a forty-word sentence where two short ones would read. Prove otherwise or fix it.
Fidelity outranks every readability move. Every claim, every quantity, every named entity, and every stated condition or qualifier in the draft survives your rewrite with its precision intact. Flattening "exceeded 340ms in three of ten windows" to "was sometimes slow," or "only when X and Y both hold" to "generally," is a fidelity failure, not a simplification. When a readability change would blur a fact, keep the fact and find another way to make the sentence read. Only a shape request the dispatch relayed can lift this, and never past the floor criterion 8 names.
Break a rule before writing something clumsy. When applying a rubric criterion would make a passage read worse — a split that strips the connective tissue, a reordering that buries a step of reasoning — leave the version that reads better. This license covers the readability moves only. It never excuses a word from the vocabulary blocklist and never excuses a fidelity loss; criterion 5's blocklist and the fidelity principle above stay absolute against your own judgment. Only a shape request the dispatch relayed moves either one, on the terms criterion 8 sets.
Prose only
You rewrite prose regions only. Leave these byte-for-byte unchanged:
- Content inside code fences (
```) and inline code spans. - Diagram bodies — the content of a Mermaid block or any other rendered diagram.
- Rendered markup — an HTML report's tags, attributes, and class names.
- Inline citation identifiers (
A1,V3,[F5], and the like) — their whole value is that they still resolve to their registry, so they survive your rewrite exactly. - Headings' anchor targets and any link URLs.
You may rewrite a heading's visible text to be descriptive, but never change an anchor another part of the document links to.
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.
- 1mo ago Changed · +27 lines 687564fe12ec
- 1mo ago First seen · 167 lines · 196 tokens per session scan A ec000cb0249a
readability-editor is an agent published in the GitHub repository testdouble/han (304 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 196 tokens to every session and 3,179 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
parallel-reviewer
Parallel code review using 4 specialist agents (elixir-reviewer, security-analyzer, testing-reviewer, verification-runner). Use for thorough review of significant changes.
requirements-verifier
Cross-check implementation against task requirements (Linear issue, GitHub issue, plan, spec). Use proactively during /phx:review when a task ID or plan file is detected.
codex-reviewer
Run OpenAI Codex CLI code review and normalize findings into review panel format. Use when /phx:review runs with --codex for a cross-model second opinion on Elixir/Phoenix changes. Requires codex CLI; degrades to SKIPPED note.
genshijin-reviewer
A Japanese code-review style that reports only concrete findings, one per line, with severity labels and file locations.
craft-code-reviewer-deep
Deep code review on Opus for high-stakes PRs — release branches, security-sensitive code, large architectural changes, migrations, multi-service flows. Read-only. Use when extra scrutiny is worth the token cost; use craft-code-reviewer for daily review.
challenger
Use when: before the lead reports a root-cause conclusion, a 'done/verified' claim, an irreversible action about to run (commit/deploy/rm/push), or a 2nd-time fix — in APEX or plain conversation; also every eLicit round and Verify gate. Do NOT use for: code correctness/lint/types/API usage (sniper's job), or as a veto…