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 skills add iliaal/whetstone --skill ia-writinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/iliaal/whetstoneWrote 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/skills/iliaal/whetstone/ia-writing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iliaal/whetstone/ia-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iliaal/whetstone/ia-writing/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/skills/iliaal/whetstone/ia-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iliaal/whetstone/ia-writing.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 | $0.00072 | $0.00945 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00473 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00189 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
ia-writing 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 3d 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.
This is a copy
89% identical to writing — 2 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 47 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Human writing
Edit human-facing prose while preserving meaning, factual accuracy, and the writer's voice. User instructions and the intended audience outrank these style preferences. Editing a draft does not authorize posting it.
Modes
- Edit (default): produce corrected text and a proportionate changelog.
- Detect: when asked to flag AI tells without rewriting, quote each observed pattern and give a brief fix. Do not rewrite, score, or infer authorship. Use Phase 1 of audit-workflow.md, then stop and offer an edit.
- Machine-facing text: tool descriptions, system prompts, skill/agent instructions, error strings, and inter-agent messages need precise specification language. Use
ia-refine-promptwhen appropriate; do not apply fragments, contractions, or invented personal voice mechanically.
Procedure
- Identify the draft's core point and 3–5 concrete voice signals to preserve: vocabulary, cadence, bluntness, humor, uncertainty, digressions, and intended polish. Keep this working note out of the delivered text.
- Match the requested surface and mode. Short commits, PR descriptions, comments, and posts need a quick audit. Long documents, essays, and reports use the two-phase audit-workflow.md.
- Lead with a concrete fact or point. Use active voice, specific actors where relevant, simple words, stable terminology, and meaningful numbers. Keep related words together, one topic per paragraph, and tone appropriate to the audience.
- Flag formulaic structures, vague claims, passive evasions, unnecessary qualifiers, artificial contrasts, synonym cycling, mechanical formatting, and fake-profound endings. A flag is a candidate, not a verdict.
- Apply restraint: leave natural sentences intact, preserve useful uncertainty, and retain lists/tables that carry real structure. Match the tone problem, not a forbidden token. Do not invent opinions, feelings, facts, or actors to satisfy a stylistic pattern.
- Read the result aloud. Check that edits remain proportional and that the writer would recognize the voice. Return the full corrected text when editing; include only the audit/changelog detail appropriate to the request and length.
What ships with it
8 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 3d ago Changed · -135 lines 5e4ea8da9bbf
- 4d ago First seen · 182 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 9638a56282b6
ia-writing is a skill published in the GitHub repository iliaal/whetstone (33 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 945 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to writing, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-responder
Use when receiving feedback on code you implemented, responding to reviewer comments, deciding which review suggestions to implement, or pushing back on incorrect review feedback.
pr-sweep
Use when you want to sweep all open pull requests across all repos, triage their status, run code reviews on unreviewed PRs, merge what's ready, fix quick blockers, and produce a full status report. Trigger when the user says "check my PRs", "close out open PRs", "what's the status of my PRs", "sweep my PRs", "PR…
rubber-ducky
Use when you've planned a non-trivial change and are about to implement it, finished a complex or multi-file piece of work, just wrote tests, or are stuck on repeated failures — and any time the user says "rubber duck this", "rubber ducky", "get a second opinion", "sanity-check my plan", "poke holes in this", "what am…
open-pr
Use when wrapping up a development task and getting a PR ready — runs local tests, creates a PR (if one doesn't exist) with a structured description template, conducts a code review via the review skill, and checks CI status with quick fixes. Trigger when the user says they're done with a feature, want to open a PR…
review
Use when user invokes /review to review code changes. Also triggers on "review my code", "check this PR", "look at my changes". Accepts a PR number (e.g. /review 123), a path filter (e.g. /review src/auth/), or no argument (reviews current branch vs base). Produces structured per-file review with severity labels…
claude-friends
Ask AIs from other families to review something before you commit to it. User-triggered, never automatic. Fires when the user signals uncertainty or asks for another perspective: 'ask a friend', 'second opinion', 'sanity check', 'cross-check', 'am I missing something', 'stress-test this', 'critique this', 'devil's…