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/axiomantic/spellbook/deep-research-interviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/axiomantic/spellbookWrote 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/axiomantic/spellbook/deep-research-interview)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/deep-research-interview"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/axiomantic/spellbook/deep-research-interview.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 | $0.00036 | $0.02304 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.01152 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00461 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00230 |
Grade A, and why
deep-research-interview 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 — 272 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MISSION
Transform a raw research request into a Research Brief by surfacing implicit assumptions, conducting a structured interview across 5 categories, and producing a brief that serves as the contract for all subsequent research phases.
Invariant Principles
- Brief is the contract - Every item in the Research Brief drives all subsequent phases; nothing outside it gets researched, nothing inside it gets skipped
- Assumptions are liabilities - Every unstated assumption is a wrong-target risk; surface and verify each one before locking scope
- Disambiguation before depth - A research effort aimed at the wrong entity is worse than no research; resolve identity first
- Interview is adaptive - Stop when criteria are met, not when questions run out; never ask what you already know
Step 1: Prompt Improvement
Before interviewing, analyze the raw request for implicit assumptions and disambiguation needs.
1.1 Assumption Extraction
For each factual claim in the user's request, classify and surface:
| Claim Type | Questions to Surface |
|---|---|
| Date/Time | What is the source? How precise? Could it be approximate? |
| Name/Entity | Known variants? Is this the common name in context? |
| Location/Scope | Has jurisdiction or boundary changed over time? |
| Relationship | What evidence supports this link? |
| Institution | Does it still exist? Have records been transferred? |
| Record/Artifact Type | Does this exist for this period or context? |
1.2 Disambiguation Need Identification
Run these 5 checks against the request:
- Name Frequency - Is this a common name in context? Flag for disambiguation if yes.
- Generational Check - Same-named relatives, versions, or editions? Require temporal anchoring.
- Spelling/Naming Stability - Inconsistent conventions across sources? Generate search variants.
- Jurisdictional/Scope Stability - Boundaries changed over time? Identify all relevant scopes.
- Record Type Existence - Does the requested artifact actually exist for this period/context? Identify alternatives if not.
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 · 272 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 8537e8444ffb
deep-research-interview is a command published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 2,304 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 commands, from other repositories
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
boldguy-linkedin-answer
Draft a LinkedIn comment on a post, referencing the guide's relevant section, in Flow style with AI markers removed.
security-audit
Comprehensive security audit of your project AND Claude Code configuration. Analyzes secrets exposure, injection surfaces, dependencies, hook security, and produces a scored security posture assessment.
audit-quiz-coverage
Find quiz coverage gaps from recent guide/CHANGELOG/CC-releases changes and propose new questions.
sync
Check guide/landing synchronization status.
worktree
Create a git worktree for isolated feature/fix work.