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.
npx agentmods add commands/animalzinc/claude-plugins/write-rescuegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/animalzinc/claude-pluginsWrote 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/animalzinc/claude-plugins/write-rescue)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/animalzinc/claude-plugins/write-rescue"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/animalzinc/claude-plugins/write-rescue.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00933 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00466 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00187 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
write-rescue 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 4d 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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/write-rescue
Diagnose an existing draft or outline that isn't working, map it against the structured writing process, and set it up so /write can take over.
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS — Required: path to the existing draft, outline, or notes. Can be a file path or a slug for an existing article folder.
Core rules
- Read everything first. Don't diagnose until you've read all provided material completely.
- Be honest. If the piece has problems, name them clearly.
- Don't fix yet. This command diagnoses.
/writefixes. - DO NOT use AskUserQuestion. Use plain text prompts for natural conversation.
Process
Step 1: Read and assess
Read the provided material completely. Classify what exists:
| Element | Status |
|---|---|
| Thesis (stated or implied) | EXISTS / WEAK / MISSING |
| Earned secret | EXISTS / WEAK / MISSING |
| Structure (outline or headers) | EXISTS / WEAK / MISSING |
| Research (citations, data, examples) | EXISTS / WEAK / MISSING |
| Introduction (hook, sinker, line) | EXISTS / WEAK / MISSING |
| Draft (partial or complete) | EXISTS / WEAK / MISSING |
Step 2: Map to process phases
Present a diagnostic table:
[DIAGNOSIS]
| Phase | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Foundation | SOLID / WEAK / MISSING | What exists or what's absent |
| 2. Thesis | SOLID / WEAK / MISSING | ... |
| 3. Structure | SOLID / WEAK / MISSING | ... |
| 4. Research | SOLID / WEAK / MISSING | ... |
| 5. 30% Outline | SOLID / WEAK / MISSING | ... |
| 6. Introduction | SOLID / WEAK / MISSING | ... |
| 7. Draft | SOLID / WEAK / MISSING | ... |
| 8. Review | NOT STARTED | ... |
Step 3: Identify the failure point
Name the most likely reason the piece isn't working. Common patterns:
- Thesis drift: Started arguing one thing, ended arguing another. The piece lacks a single through-line.
- Missing earned secret: The argument is built on recycled advice anyone could write, not on authentic experience.
- Outline-to-draft jump: Went straight from rough idea to prose, skipping the hard structural thinking. The draft meanders.
- Research gap: Assertions without evidence. The argument feels thin or unsupported.
- Hook failure: Generic opening that doesn't grab. No pattern interrupt.
- 30% overshoot: The outline became a rough draft. Too much detail too early killed the ability to see the structure.
- Writer-centric structure: Organized by how the writer figured things out, not how the reader needs to receive them.
- Soft middle: Tried to be both tactical and strategic. Neither lands.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 85 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 46a14418f881
write-rescue is a command published in the GitHub repository animalzinc/claude-plugins (15 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 933 tokens. 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
brand-setup
Configure brand voice, terminology, compliance guardrails, and style guide for content production.
resume
Resume a ContentForge pipeline run that was interrupted partway through.
output-folder
Print the absolute path to the user-visible ContentForge output folder and open it in the OS file manager.
create-content
Run the full 10-phase content production pipeline — research, draft, fact-check, humanize, and publish.
audit-content
Audit your content library for freshness decay, coverage gaps, and optimization opportunities.
content-brief
Generate a research-backed content brief with keyword data, competitor analysis, search intent, and SEO strategy.