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/Abhinavbwj/AEC-ScholarWrote 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/commands/abhinavbwj/aec-scholar/abstract)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/abhinavbwj/aec-scholar/abstract"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/abhinavbwj/aec-scholar/abstract.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 | $0.00014 | $0.00363 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00181 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00073 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00036 |
Grade A, and why
abstract 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 7d 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.
What it actually says
Write or refine an abstract for: $ARGUMENTS
Use the academic-writer agent and the academic-writing skill.
-
Gather the essentials from the manuscript/points: context & problem, the specific gap/objective, the method, the key concrete results (numbers beat adjectives), and the contribution/implication.
-
Draft the abstract to the target length (default 150–250 words; honor the venue limit if given), in the venue's structure (structured headings vs single paragraph). Ensure it is self-contained: no citations, no undefined acronyms, and nothing that isn't in the paper.
-
Make it concrete. Replace vague claims with specifics ("improved accuracy" → "improved detection F1 from 0.74 to 0.88"). Lead with the problem, land on the contribution.
-
Provide a short critique of the draft (or the user's existing abstract): is the gap clear? is the contribution explicit? are results concrete? does it over-claim? Then give the polished version.
-
Offer to also generate a graphical-abstract outline, highlights (3–5 bullet points, ≤85 chars each — Elsevier style), and a plain-language summary if the venue asks for them.
Integrity: the abstract must accurately represent the paper. Do not state results the manuscript doesn't contain; if key numbers are missing, ask for them or mark placeholders.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 29 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 1f60f8eee46d
abstract is a command published in the GitHub repository Abhinavbwj/AEC-Scholar (18 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 363 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.