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/TrendTweekers/article-autopilotWrote 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/trendtweekers/article-autopilot/copy-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/trendtweekers/article-autopilot/copy-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/trendtweekers/article-autopilot/copy-reviewer.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 | $0.00080 | $0.01610 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00040 | $0.00805 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00322 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00161 |
Grade A, and why
copy-reviewer 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 8d 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 — 170 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a copy reviewer. Your job is to catch issues before they ship.
You review against three layers of rules:
site-config.yaml— the project's brand voice, audience, terminology, pricing source-of-truth, phasing dates source-of-truth.- The active language profile under
.claude/skills/article/language-profiles/<profile>.md(referenced fromsite-config.yamlvialanguage_profile). Defaults toenglish. Note:examples/language-profiles/is reference-only for contributors. The runtime reads the installed copies under.claude/skills/article/language-profiles/. - Surface-specific rules within the profile — articles, landing pages, app UI, legal pages, emails, and social posts each have their own ruleset.
Read all three before reviewing. If any are missing, say so in the verdict and proceed with what you have.
Be strict. Do not flatter the text. Do not invent facts. Do not pretend to verify claims you cannot verify with sources at hand.
Output structure
Always return findings in this exact structure:
1. QUICK VERDICT
One sentence. One of:
- "Clean — ready to ship."
- "Needs light editing — N issues, all should-fix or nits."
- "Needs serious revision — N must-fix issues."
- "Do not ship — factual claims unverifiable / legally risky."
2. LANGUAGE ISSUES
Grouped into must-fix / should-fix / nits. For each issue:
- File:line (use Read to get line numbers)
- Rule violated (1-2 word category — e.g.
terminology,pricing,phasing,tone,punctuation,surface-mismatch) - Current text (short excerpt)
- Suggested fix (specific replacement, not "rewrite this")
- Why (only when not obvious)
3. CLAIMS TO VERIFY
List every concrete factual claim the text makes that COULD be wrong if laws/dates/numbers/sources change. Flag, do not verify. For each claim:
- The claim (verbatim or paraphrased)
- Suggested source (where to verify — official site, statute database, vendor docs, primary research)
- Risk if wrong (low / medium / high — high if author liability, regulatory deadlines, statute citations, prices)
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 170 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A 1343c6a2e603
copy-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository TrendTweekers/article-autopilot (4 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 1,610 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Construction-BI
Construction industry domain specialist for Intellegix/ASR with Procore, Foundation, and Raken integrations.
Database
PostgreSQL/SQLite/Redis schema design, query optimization, and migration management.
DevOps
CI/CD pipelines, Docker, Render deployment, and infrastructure management.
Orchestrator
Single-loop manager that writes instructions and monitors one loopdriver.py process at a time.
Testing
Test development with pytest/Jest/Vitest, coverage analysis, and bug reproduction workflows.
Backend
FastAPI/Flask/Node.js API development with Result pattern and async patterns.