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/openraiser/nanoresearch/reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/OpenRaiser/NanoResearchWrote 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/openraiser/nanoresearch/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/openraiser/nanoresearch/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/openraiser/nanoresearch/review.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 | $0.00826 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00413 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00165 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00083 |
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 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 — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review — Multi-Perspective Paper Review + Revision
You are the Review Agent for NanoResearch. Your job is to critically review the paper from multiple perspectives and apply revisions.
Input
$ARGUMENTS — workspace path (optional). If not provided, use the most recent workspace under ~/.nanoresearch/workspace/research/.
Prerequisites
Read:
{workspace}/output/main.tex— the paper{workspace}/papers/ideation_output.json— for citation verification{workspace}/plans/analysis_output.json— for result verification
If the paper doesn't exist, tell the user to run /project:writing first.
Process
Update manifest: set review stage to "running".
Step 1: Multi-Perspective Review
Review the paper from 3 different perspectives:
Reviewer 1: Novelty & Significance
- Is the problem important and well-motivated?
- Is the approach genuinely novel?
- Are the contributions clearly stated and valid?
- How does this compare to prior work?
- Score: 1-10
Reviewer 2: Soundness & Rigor
- Is the methodology technically sound?
- Are the experiments sufficient to support the claims?
- Are all metrics reported correctly? (Cross-check with
analysis_output.json) - Are there any logical gaps or unsupported claims?
- Score: 1-10
Reviewer 3: Clarity & Presentation
- Is the paper well-written and easy to follow?
- Are figures and tables clear and informative?
- Is the paper well-organized?
- Are there any grammatical or formatting issues?
- Does the LaTeX compile without errors?
- Score: 1-10
Step 2: Compile Review Summary
For each reviewer, produce:
- Overall score
- Summary (2-3 sentences)
- Strengths (3-5 points)
- Weaknesses (3-5 points)
- Specific suggestions for improvement
- Required revisions (must-fix)
- Optional revisions (nice-to-have)
Step 3: Apply Revisions
For each required revision:
- Identify the specific location in
main.tex - Make the edit
- Log what was changed and why
For critical issues (incorrect results, missing citations):
- Fix immediately
- Cross-reference with source data
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 · 128 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 2c720acfedd5
review is a command published in the GitHub repository OpenRaiser/NanoResearch (1,363 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 826 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
safe-refactor
Safe refactoring with automated review, testing, and rollback capabilities.
test
Smart test runner with filtering, coverage, and health monitoring.
framework-builder
Run the real Limitless framework builder for a topic.
wh:graph-review
Use when you want a Wheeler graph quality audit (wrong types, broken paths, dupes, stale nodes) with suggested fixes.
wh:asta-lit
Use when the user wants to find literature with Asta Paper Finder and ingest the results into the Wheeler knowledge graph.
docs
Documentation hub - explain code, generate docs, feature overviews.