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 jamditis/claude-skills-journalism/plugin install autocontextWrote 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/jamditis/claude-skills-journalism/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jamditis/claude-skills-journalism/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jamditis/claude-skills-journalism/review/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/jamditis/claude-skills-journalism/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jamditis/claude-skills-journalism/review.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 | $0.00008 | $0.01315 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00658 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00263 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00131 |
Grade A, and why
review 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 11d 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 — 144 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review accumulated lessons in .autocontext/lessons.json. Use AskUserQuestion to walk through lessons.
Initialization
The script first reads .autocontext/lessons.json and separates lessons into two groups:
- Active lessons,
deleted: falseor not marked deleted - Tombstoned lessons,
deleted: true(lessons that were intentionally removed)
If .autocontext/cache/curated-pending.json exists (from previous curation sessions with pending items), those are presented first for final approval.
Review order
Active lessons are sorted by confidence score (lowest first). Low-confidence lessons need the most attention, these are either new, frequently contradicted, or validated by few developers.
Lesson presentation
Lessons are presented in batches of 3-4 using AskUserQuestion. For each lesson, the review shows:
- Text, the lesson content
- Category, lesson type (bug-fix, architecture, workflow, pattern, gotcha, etc.)
- Confidence, current score (0.0 to 1.0)
- Validated count, how many sessions/developers have confirmed it
- Created by, which developer/session discovered it
- Age, how long ago it was created
Example format:
Lesson: "Always run git pull before pushing to main"
Category: workflow
Confidence: 0.9 | Validated: 12 times | Created by: alice | Age: 45 days
Review actions
For each lesson, you choose one action:
Options:
- Approve, increase confidence by +0.2 (confirms lesson is valuable)
- Edit, modify lesson text, category, or tags
- Delete, tombstone the lesson (marks as
deleted: true) - Supersede, replace this lesson with a newer/better version
- Skip, leave unchanged and move to next
Approve
Bumps confidence by 0.2. Use this when you confirm a lesson is still valid and useful.
Edit
Opens the lesson for modification. You can update:
- Lesson text (the knowledge itself)
- Category (bug-fix, architecture, workflow, pattern, gotcha, integration, test-strategy)
- Tags (optional metadata)
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 144 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A 75c034a568c9
review is a command published in the GitHub repository jamditis/claude-skills-journalism (389 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 1,315 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
export-latex
Export the current paper draft to production-ready LaTeX (.tex) and PDF using the arxiv-style template. Converts draft.md + references.bib + figures/ into a complete LaTeX project with resolved citations, tables, and figures. Compiles to PDF automatically.
review-paper
Simulate a double-blind peer review of the current paper. Generates 2 independent reviewer reports in the style of top IS/CS conferences (ICIS, ECIS, MISQ level). Each report includes Summary, Strengths, Weaknesses, Minor Comments, and Overall Recommendation. Output is saved as simulatedreviews.md and can be fed…
triage-project
Strategic project triage — should you continue, pivot, or kill your current research project? Evaluates 5 signals (results, competition, impact, effort, motivation) and delivers a clear Continue/Pivot/Kill recommendation. For Pivot: suggests concrete new framing. For Kill: suggests what to salvage.
analyze-writing
Analyze academic writing quality of the current draft. Checks for passive voice overuse, weak openings, hedging balance, readability, sentence length variation, and word repetitions. Produces a writing quality report with specific improvement suggestions per section.
scooping-check
Scooping risk assessment — is someone else working on your research idea? Identifies competing groups, assesses pace of publication, evaluates whether the core insight is "in the air", and provides a watch list with search terms, key researchers, and venues to monitor.
audit-paper
Audit a paper's empirical claims against the linked code repository — catches MISMATCH, MISSING, and PARTIAL claims before submission.