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/Xquik-dev/x-twitter-scraperWrote 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/xquik-dev/x-twitter-scraper/post)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/xquik-dev/x-twitter-scraper/post"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/xquik-dev/x-twitter-scraper/post/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/xquik-dev/x-twitter-scraper/post"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/xquik-dev/x-twitter-scraper/post.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 | $0.00005 | $0.00236 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00094 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00047 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00024 |
Grade A, and why
post scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 7d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Post the text "$ARGUMENTS" to X.
Workflow
- If the text is empty, ask the user what to tweet.
- Resolve the connected X username. Ask the user if it is unknown.
- Show the exact text, account, endpoint, and usage estimate.
- Wait for explicit user confirmation.
- After confirmation, call
POST /api/v1/x/tweetswith theexecuteMCP tool and the body{ "account": "<confirmed account>", "text": "<the tweet text>" }. Hosted MCP injects a uniqueIdempotency-Key. - Accept HTTP 200 or 202. Wait for
pollAfterMs, then pollstatusUrl. Stop whenterminalis true. - Show the confirmed tweet ID and
https://x.com/i/status/{tweetId}.
The API requires account and Idempotency-Key on every post request. Direct
REST callers must supply the header. Hosted MCP supplies it automatically.
Start a new attempt only when safeToRetry is true.
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.
- 7d ago Changed 60d9d62a2ab5
- 1mo ago First seen · 23 lines · 5 tokens per session scan A 3d3b34b83762
post is a command published in the GitHub repository Xquik-dev/x-twitter-scraper (216 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 5 tokens to every session and 236 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
parse
Parse a PDF to Markdown via KolmoPDF (handles formulas, tables, multi-column).
convert
Convert Markdown to DOCX, HTML, PDF, or LaTeX (KolmoPDF).
translate
Translate a PDF while preserving its original layout (KolmoPDF).
balance
Show KolmoPDF account credit balance.
review-epo-claims
Analyze patent claims for EPO Art. 84 EPC compliance - clarity, conciseness, support by description.
discuss
A command that interviews you in five phases and saves a detailed description of a proposed feature or change. EARS is a structured way to write requirements so they can be checked clearly.