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/robertguss/claude-code-toolkitWrote 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/robertguss/claude-code-toolkit/writing-draft)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/robertguss/claude-code-toolkit/writing-draft"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/robertguss/claude-code-toolkit/writing-draft/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/robertguss/claude-code-toolkit/writing-draft"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/robertguss/claude-code-toolkit/writing-draft.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 | $0.01159 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00464 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00232 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00116 |
Grade A, and why
writing:draft scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 198 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Writing Draft Command
Execute an outline into prose, following style preferences and voice profiles.
Input
<outline_path> #$ARGUMENTS </outline_path>
Workflow Overview
This command executes the drafting phase:
- Load outline and research
- Load applicable style guide
- Pre-draft checklist
- Section-by-section drafting with voice guardian loop
- Quality checkpoints
Phase 1: Load Context
Read Outline and Research
Read the outline file at [outline_path]
Read associated research.md and sources.md in same directory
Extract:
- The thesis/argument
- The hook
- Section structure
- Source requirements per section
Load Style Guide
Check for applicable style:
- Check for voice profile:
.claude/voice-profiles/[name].yaml - Check for style skill:
every-style-editor,dhh-writing,pragmatic-writing - Ask if none found: "Which style should I use? (Every style, DHH style, Pragmatic style, or provide custom)"
Extract Channel Guidance
Based on outline metadata or ask:
- Blog: longer form, storytelling allowed
- Newsletter: personality forward, direct address okay
- Social: punchy, hooks required
- Documentation: clear, step-by-step, minimal personality
Phase 2: Pre-Draft Checklist
Before writing any prose, verify:
- Opening is concrete - Story or example first, not theory
- Each section has clear purpose - Know what each must accomplish
- Sources are sufficient - Every claim can be supported
- Voice is defined - Know the style to match
If any fail, return to /writing:plan to address.
Phase 3: Section-by-Section Drafting
The Producer-Critic Loop
For each section, use iterative voice-guardian feedback:
Loop for each section:
1. Draft the section following:
- Outline beats
- Style guide rules
- Baseline strategies (short sentences, active voice, concrete examples)
2. Run voice-guardian check:
Task voice-guardian: "Check this section against voice profile:
[section text]
Voice profile: [profile details]
Return score (0-100) and specific fixes needed."
3. If score < 85:
- Apply suggested fixes
- Re-check until score ≥ 85
4. If score ≥ 85:
- Move to next section
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 198 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A a90f1485f765
writing:draft is a command published in the GitHub repository robertguss/claude-code-toolkit (126 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 1,159 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
commit
Analyze Git changes and generate a conventional commit message following the Commitizen format.
promote
The promote loop — scan your transcripts for what you keep asking, pick a pattern, draft the skill, test its triggers, publish the release package.
pr
Create a pull request from the current branch.
cp
Stage, commit, and push the current branch following git governance rules.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.