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/ltjed/freephdlabor/refine_agent_promptgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ltjed/freephdlaborWrote 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/ltjed/freephdlabor/refine_agent_prompt)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ltjed/freephdlabor/refine_agent_prompt"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ltjed/freephdlabor/refine_agent_prompt.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 | $0.00557 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00279 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00111 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
refine_agent_prompt 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 5d 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 — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are tasked with optimizing the multi-agent workflow by iteratively improving agent instructions to produce high-quality papers publishable at top AI conferences.
Arguments provided: $ARGUMENTS
The arguments may or may not contain the following:
- agent_name (optional): The specific agent to optimize (manager, ideation, experimentation, or writeup). If not specified, analyze all agents.
- results_dir (optional): A specific results directory to analyze (e.g., "20250715_152703_adaptive_lr_cnn"). If not specified, run a new experiment first.
Your workflow:
Step 1: Determine Starting Point
- If a results_dir is provided, skip to Step 2 with that directory
- Otherwise, run the multi-agent system:
eval "$(conda shell.bash hook)" && conda activate freephdlabor && export $(cat .env | grep -v '^#' | xargs) && python launch_multiagent.py --model gpt-5.5 2>&1 | tee logs/output_$(date +%Y%m%d_%H%M%S).log
Step 2: Analyze Results
- Read the JSONL file at
results/{results_dir}/agent_llm_calls.jsonl - Focus on the specified agent_name if provided, otherwise analyze all agents
- Identify issues such as:
- Agent coordination problems
- Task execution efficiency issues
- Research quality and depth problems
- Experimental design and execution issues
- Inter-agent communication breakdowns
Step 3: Improve Instructions
Based on identified issues, modify the corresponding instruction files:
- For specific agent:
freephdlabor/prompts/{agent_name}_instructions.py - For all agents: Review and update all instruction files as needed
Important constraints:
- Instructions are system prompts - keep them concise and actionable
- Focus on improving agent behavior and coordination
- Prioritize research quality and paper publishability
- Do NOT modify code structure, only instruction content
Step 4: Commit Changes
Create a git commit with a clear message summarizing:
- Which agent(s) were optimized
- Key issues identified
- Main improvements made
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 55 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 11a9a51fc19f
refine_agent_prompt is a command published in the GitHub repository ltjed/freephdlabor (715 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 557 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
orchestrate
This tool coordinates Claude Code's actions. It does NOT write code or create content.
fest-show
Show festival progression (in-progress tasks, roadmap, and dependency view).
performance-bottlenecks
Identify and resolve performance bottlenecks in your development workflow.
review
Review proposed ADRs for lifecycle progression — accept implemented decisions, deprecate stale ones, archive trivial ones.
types
Debug and fix TypeScript type errors with systematic analysis and expert guidance.
statusline
Show the governor fleet in your Claude Code statusline. Explicit, opt-in, and chains — it never replaces an existing statusline.