Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wordflowlab/novel-writernpx agentmods add commands/wordflowlab/novel-writer/checklistWrote 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/wordflowlab/novel-writer/checklist)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/wordflowlab/novel-writer/checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/wordflowlab/novel-writer/checklist.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 5.1 | $0.00017 | $0.02757 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.01378 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00551 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00276 |
Grade A, and why
checklist 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 8d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- checklist — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 335 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
质量检查清单（Checklist）
生成或执行质量检查清单，支持两种模式：
🎯 支持的检查类型
第一类：规格质量检查（问题生成式）
验证规划文档本身的质量（类似"需求的单元测试"）：
大纲质量- 检查 outline.md 的完整性、清晰度、一致性角色设定- 检查 spec/knowledge/characters.md世界观- 检查 spec/knowledge/world-setting.md 及相关文档创作计划- 检查 creative-plan.md / specification.md伏笔管理- 检查 spec/tracking/plot-tracker.json 的伏笔定义
第二类：内容验证检查（结果报告式）
扫描已写章节，验证实际内容：
世界观一致性- 扫描章节内容，检查世界观描述矛盾情节对齐- 对比进度与大纲，检查情节发展数据同步- 验证所有 tracking JSON 文件的同步性时间线- 检查时间事件的逻辑连续性写作状态- 检查写作准备度和任务状态
用户输入
$ARGUMENTS
执行流程
1. 识别检查类型
根据用户输入，确定检查类型（规格质量 vs 内容验证）：
关键词映射：
- "大纲"、"质量" → 规格质量类：大纲质量
- "角色"、"设定" → 规格质量类：角色设定
- "世界观" + "质量/完整性/规格" → 规格质量类：世界观
- "世界观" + "一致性/检查/扫描" → 内容验证类：世界观一致性
- "创作计划"、"规划" → 规格质量类：创作计划
- "伏笔" → 规格质量类：伏笔管理
- "情节"、"对齐"、"进度" → 内容验证类：情节对齐
- "数据"、"同步"、"一致性" → 内容验证类：数据同步
- "时间线"、"时间" → 内容验证类：时间线
- "写作状态"、"准备" → 内容验证类：写作状态
如果用户输入不明确，询问选择。
2. 执行对应的检查逻辑
规格质量类检查（生成问题式 Checklist）
执行类似 spec-kit 的需求质量验证逻辑：
2.1 大纲质量检查
目标：验证 outline.md 是否具备良好的完整性、清晰度和一致性。
读取文件：
outline.md或stories/*/outline.mdspec/tracking/plot-tracker.json（如果存在）
生成检查项维度：
完整性 (Completeness)：
- 是否为每个主要情节节点定义了触发条件和结果？
- 是否明确每个卷/章的故事目标？
- 是否覆盖所有主要角色的成长弧？
- 是否定义了主要冲突的升级路径？
- 是否明确故事的高潮和结局？
清晰度 (Clarity)：
- 情节节点的触发条件是否具体可验证？
- 章节分配是否有明确的依据（如字数、情节密度）？
- 角色动机是否用具体事件量化？
- 场景描述是否避免模糊词汇（"某个地方"、"一段时间"）？
一致性 (Consistency)：
- 情节线索前后是否矛盾？
- 角色行为是否符合设定？
- 时间跨度是否合理？
- 世界观规则是否与大纲描述一致？
可测量性 (Measurability)：
- 章节分配是否合理可行（如每章2000-4000字）？
- 伏笔回收时机是否明确（章节号或章节范围）？
- 角色成长是否有明确的里程碑？
覆盖范围 (Coverage)：
- 是否考虑了所有主要场景类型（冲突、日常、转折）？
- 是否覆盖了所有主要角色的戏份？
- 是否包含必要的伏笔铺设和回收？
输出格式示例：
# 大纲质量检查清单
**创建时间**: 2025-10-11
**检查对象**: outline.md
**检查维度**: 完整性、清晰度、一致性、可测量性、覆盖范围
## 完整性 (Completeness)
- [ ] CHK001 是否为每个主要情节节点定义了触发条件和结果？ [Spec §大纲3.2]
- [ ] CHK002 是否明确每个卷/章的故事目标？ [Gap]
- [ ] CHK003 是否覆盖所有主要角色的成长弧？ [Spec §大纲5.1]
## 清晰度 (Clarity)
- [ ] CHK004 情节节点的触发条件是否具体可验证？ [Ambiguity, Spec §大纲3.2]
- [ ] CHK005 章节分配是否有明确的依据？ [Clarity]
## 一致性 (Consistency)
- [ ] CHK006 情节线索前后是否矛盾？ [Consistency]
- [ ] CHK007 世界观规则是否与大纲描述一致？ [Consistency, vs §世界观]
## 可测量性 (Measurability)
- [ ] CHK008 章节分配是否合理可行（如每章2000-4000字）？ [Measurability]
- [ ] CHK009 伏笔回收时机是否明确（章节号或范围）？ [Gap]
## 覆盖范围 (Coverage)
- [ ] CHK010 是否考虑了所有主要场景类型？ [Coverage]
- [ ] CHK011 是否包含必要的伏笔铺设和回收？ [Coverage, Gap]
## 使用说明
勾选已验证项：`[x]`
标记问题项：`[!]` 并在下方记录具体问题
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 335 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A c68dbce1a992
checklist is a command published in the GitHub repository wordflowlab/novel-writer (940 stars, last pushed 10mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 2,757 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
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.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.