Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add akougkas/wtf-p/plugin install wtfpWrote 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/akougkas/wtf-p/review-section)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/akougkas/wtf-p/review-section"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/akougkas/wtf-p/review-section/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/commands/akougkas/wtf-p/review-section"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/akougkas/wtf-p/review-section.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00969 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00388 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00194 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
review-section scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 29d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
84% identical to add-todo — 39 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review a section
@${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/project/README.md @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/wtfp-review-manuscript/SKILL.md @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/wtfp-review-manuscript/references/actions.md
Record contract
Read: project://manifest, project://decisions, project://structure/outline, project://sections/{section}, project://sections/{section}/context, project://sections/{section}/plans/{plan}, project://sections/{section}/research, project://sections/{section}/summary, project://evidence/{evidence}, project://paper/{artifact}.
Produce: project://sections/{section}/reviews/{review} (create), project://validations/{validation} (create), project://sections/{section} (update).
Resolve every logical URI through the host adapter. Portable v1 JSON records are the source of truth: schema-validate before a write, preserve stable IDs, update revision and timestamps where required, and replace records atomically. Never pass a literal logical URI to a shell command or infer record state from a legacy Markdown control file.
Manuscript prose and supporting context, research, plan, review, summary, handoff, and deliverable artifacts retain their authored format (normally Markdown). Link them from the relevant v1 record; do not convert manuscript prose into project-state JSON.
Procedure
- Resolve one manuscript section, its outline claims, context, plan, research, summary, decisions, evidence, neighboring prose, and review rubric.
- Dispatch one read-only review of claim coverage, reasoning, evidence, citations, coherence, prose, and requirements. If the structured result is malformed, allow at most one corrective retry for result-contract compliance; never retry until a reviewer says pass, and do not retry warning-only or explicitly accepted debt.
- Write layer, confidence, location, impact, recommendation, and other rich detail in the Markdown review. Encode the read-only validation using only members allowed by the closed v1 schema; issue objects contain only severity, summary, and optional evidence, and the root never gains an
input_revisionsmember. Disputed findings go through a user gate; accepted warning debt remains anissues-foundresult and does not authorize manuscript edits. - Update only the section record to link the review. Review does not write project state, create a pause checkpoint or handoff, invoke pause implicitly, or invent a
pausedphase; leave lifecycle transitions to their owning actions.
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.
- 29d ago Changed 8fe391bae055
- 1mo ago First seen · 68 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A f81bed26b1f4
review-section is a command published in the GitHub repository akougkas/wtf-p (20 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 969 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 84% identical to add-todo, differing in 39 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
me-cfd-review
Review thermal-fluid CFD setup, boundary conditions, mesh, wall treatment, convergence, validation, and whether the claims are supported.
research
Start or resume an academic research project — idea through literature, methodology, writing, feedback, and publishing.
openehr-explain
One-stop router that explains or looks up any openEHR thing — auto-detects an archetype, a template, an RM/AM/BASE type, an RM structural concept, an ADL idiom, an AQL query or keyword, or a terminology code (replaces /archetype-explain, /template-explain, /type-spec, /rm-structure, /adl-idiom, /terminology).
gpd:write-paper
Structure and write a physics paper from project research results or a bounded external-authoring intake.
gpd:derive-equation
Perform a rigorous physics derivation with systematic verification at each step.
gpd:limiting-cases
Systematically identify and verify all relevant limiting cases for a result or phase.