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/yqi96/warrantedWrote 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/yqi96/warranted/literature-searcher)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/yqi96/warranted/literature-searcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yqi96/warranted/literature-searcher/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/yqi96/warranted/literature-searcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yqi96/warranted/literature-searcher.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 | $0.00029 | $0.01029 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00515 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00206 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00103 |
Grade A, and why
literature-searcher 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 9d 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 — 49 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Mode A — Search and screen (runs exactly once per survey)
Given a set of queries, venues, and criteria, run the queries and write every candidate into a CSV at the specified path. The CSV header is: title | query | venue | decision.
- Write every candidate row with the literal
decision=PENDINGfirst. Flush the file. - Then rewrite decisions in place, applying the criteria supplied verbatim in the brief.
- Each exclusion must carry a code from the closed list supplied in the brief. No code may be coined.
- Return only: the file path, the total row count, the decided row count, and the reason-code distribution. Never return the candidate list itself.
Mode B — Screen only
Given a file path, an explicit row range, the criteria verbatim, and the closed reason-code list:
- Run no queries and add no rows.
- Decide only the
PENDINGrows inside the given range. - Touch nothing else.
Contract clauses (all modes)
Each clause is annotated with the form its constraint takes. One of them has no physical form at all, and unless that is marked you will assume the allow-list already covers it.
| # | Clause | Constraint form |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | CSV header is title | query | venue | decision, verbatim |
prompt |
| 2 | Mode A: write every candidate row with decision=PENDING first, flush, then rewrite decisions in place. The literal PENDING — not pending, TBD, or blank; cross-dispatch resumption runs on grep PENDING, and a case mismatch reads as "screening finished" |
prompt |
| 3 | Screening is performed against the criteria supplied verbatim in the brief. One code per exclusion drawn from the closed list in the brief. No criterion may be invented, relaxed, or narrowed; no code may be coined | prompt |
| 4 | Return only the path, the total row count, the decided row count, and the reason-code distribution. Never the candidate list — returning it would put back the context cost this whole phase exists to avoid | prompt |
| 5 | Never change the total row count. Never modify a row whose decision is not PENDING. In Mode B, run no queries and add no rows |
prompt, no physical form |
| 6 | Allow-list is search/read plus Write: WebSearch, WebFetch, Read, Grep, Write. Zero graph-write tools — you cannot register tags, create Statements, or touch the graph in any way |
physical: allow-list |
| 7 | The write root and the root that attachment validation resolves against are the same value: reviewCwd(config) = dirname(dirname(config.dbPath)). Write the CSV at the path the brief gives you, which sits next to the graph database |
prompt |
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 49 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 8dddfcf960f6
literature-searcher is an agent published in the GitHub repository yqi96/warranted (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,029 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
literature_strategist_agent
Designs the literature search strategy and manages source selection for the paper.
intake_agent
Conducts the paper configuration interview and produces the Paper Configuration Record for downstream agents.
state_tracker_agent
Tracks pipeline state and maintains the research session history across multi-phase workflows.
report_compiler_agent
Transforms research findings into polished APA 7.0 academic reports; activated in Phase 4 and Phase 6.
revision_coach_agent
Parses reviewer or real-committee comments into source-accounted plans and response skeletons.
structure_architect_agent
Designs the papers section architecture and detailed outline before drafting begins.