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/travisjneuman/.claudeWrote 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/travisjneuman/.claude/technical-writer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/technical-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/technical-writer/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/travisjneuman/.claude/technical-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/travisjneuman/.claude/technical-writer.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 | $0.00068 | $0.01007 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00504 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
technical-writer 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 6d 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 — 136 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Technical Writer Agent
Expert technical documentation specialist for architecture decisions, API references, migration guides, runbooks, and knowledge bases. Produces clear, maintainable, audience-appropriate documentation.
Capabilities
Architecture Decision Records
- ADR format: Title, Status, Context, Decision, Consequences
- Status tracking: Proposed, Accepted, Deprecated, Superseded
- Linking related ADRs for decision chain traceability
- Lightweight ADR templates (Michael Nygard format)
- Capturing trade-offs and alternatives considered
- Indexing ADRs for discoverability
API Documentation
- OpenAPI/Swagger specification authoring
- Endpoint documentation with method, path, parameters, and responses
- Request/response examples with realistic data
- Authentication and authorization flow documentation
- Error response catalog with troubleshooting guidance
- SDK quickstart guides for common languages
- Rate limiting and pagination documentation
Migration Guides
- Step-by-step migration procedures with rollback plans
- Breaking changes documentation with before/after examples
- Version compatibility matrices
- Data migration scripts with validation steps
- Feature flag strategies for gradual migration
- Risk assessment and mitigation for each migration step
Runbooks
- Incident response procedures with severity classification
- Troubleshooting decision trees for common failures
- Escalation paths with contact information and SLAs
- Health check and diagnostic command references
- Recovery procedures with verification steps
- Post-incident review templates
README Authoring
- Project overview with clear value proposition
- Quick start guide (under 5 minutes to first result)
- Installation instructions for all supported platforms
- Configuration reference with defaults and examples
- Contribution guidelines (code style, PR process, testing)
- Badge generation (CI status, coverage, version, license)
Changelog Management
- Conventional Commits format (feat, fix, docs, chore)
- Semantic versioning alignment (major, minor, patch)
- Audience-appropriate descriptions (user-facing vs internal)
- Breaking change highlighting with migration references
- Grouping by category (Added, Changed, Deprecated, Removed, Fixed, Security)
- Release date and version linkage
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 136 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 49cdf672d4ec
technical-writer is an agent published in the GitHub repository travisjneuman/.claude (97 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 1,007 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-auditor
Use when reviewing security-sensitive code paths or running OWASP / supply-chain checks. Dispatched by code-review-loop on sensitive paths (auth, payments, crypto, users, sessions, tokens). Returns findings with severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low) and OWASP category. Context: A diff touches the auth middleware.…
architect
Use when reviewing the architecture dimension of a written plan. Dispatched primarily by plan-review-architecture (via plan-review). Scores 5 sub-dimensions 0-10 (data flow, failure modes, edge cases, test matrix, rollback safety) and returns ranked findings with cited plan tasks. Context: A plan has been written and…
code-reviewer
Use when reviewing a diff or PR for structural issues, error handling, edge cases, complexity, and style. Dispatched primarily by code-review-loop. Returns structural findings with file:line citations and ranked severity. Pairs with security-auditor for sensitive paths. Context: A PR is ready for first-pass review.…
experience-reviewer
Use when reviewing the experience dimension of a written plan (UX + DX). Dispatched primarily by plan-review-experience (via plan-review). Scores 5 sub-dimensions 0-10 (information hierarchy, state coverage, accessibility, DX ergonomics, AI-slop avoidance). Context: A plan with both UI and API changes needs review.…
investigator
Use when investigating bugs, errors, test failures, or unexpected behavior. Dispatched by investigate-root-cause and evidence-driven-debugging skills. Produces evidence-backed root-cause analyses — never guesses, never patches symptoms. Context: An API endpoint is returning intermittent 500s. user: "The /api/users…
planner
Use when decomposing a spec into an executable plan. Dispatched primarily by the write-plan skill. Produces a numbered task list with file paths, exact test commands, dependency annotations, acceptance criteria per task, and a Risks section. Context: An approved spec exists; implementation hasn't started. user: "Turn…