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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Marazii/research-co-pilotWrote 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/marazii/research-co-pilot/lit-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/marazii/research-co-pilot/lit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/marazii/research-co-pilot/lit-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/marazii/research-co-pilot/lit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/marazii/research-co-pilot/lit-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 | $0.00012 | $0.00227 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00113 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00045 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00023 |
Grade A, and why
lit-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 10d 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.
What it actually says
Invoke the literature-review skill from the research-co-pilot plugin and execute its full workflow.
The skill file is at skills/literature-review/SKILL.md relative to this plugin. Read it and follow it precisely — including:
- Phase 1: Scope the review (clarify type, discipline, inclusion criteria, sources at hand).
- Phase 2: Source acquisition — read user-provided files first, then targeted search if allowed.
- Phase 3-4: Critical appraisal and synthesis (organize by idea, not by source).
- Phase 5: Output to
lit_review_<topic>.mdwith the specified structure. - Phase 6: Self-audit checklist.
For >5 sources, delegate parallel reading to the source-finder subagent.
User input: $ARGUMENTS
If no topic was given, ask what to review and what sources/scope are in play.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 21 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A bb32e83a741c
lit-review is a command published in the GitHub repository Marazii/research-co-pilot (12 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 227 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
wp-cleanup
Find and clean up unused PHP code, Composer dependencies, imports, and dead code in WordPress projects.
audit
Adversarial, exhaustive review of the entire repository across code, tests, documentation, and configuration, with optional fixing in the same run. Assumes the code is incorrect until proven otherwise. This is the default command when the invocation names no other.
a
Intercept Mode - Auto-improve and execute immediately.
speckit.tasks
Generate an actionable, dependency-ordered tasks.md for the feature based on available design artifacts.
prep
Prepare a pre-meeting briefing by reviewing all memory files and surfacing items that need discussion.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.