Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add mishahanin/heading-os-marketplace/plugin install heading-opsWrote 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/mishahanin/heading-os-marketplace/editorial-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mishahanin/heading-os-marketplace/editorial-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mishahanin/heading-os-marketplace/editorial-review/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/mishahanin/heading-os-marketplace/editorial-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mishahanin/heading-os-marketplace/editorial-review.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 | $0.00071 | $0.01577 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00631 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00315 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00158 |
Grade A, and why
editorial-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 2mo 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
91% identical to editorial-review — 7 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 — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Editorial Review (structural pass)
Critique and tighten a long deliverable's argument architecture — then hand the prose off to the humanization layer. This skill operates on structure only; it never rewrites sentences and never challenges the ideas.
The full method (document arcs, operation vocabulary, defect checklist, the hard boundary with humanization.md) lives in reference/editorial-review.md. Load it; do not restate it here.
Phase 0: Load context
- Read
reference/editorial-review.md(the document-model arcs, the operation vocabulary, the defect checklist, the boundary table). - Read
.claude/rules/humanization.mdand confirm the boundary. This skill stops at the paragraph. Everything below it belongs to that rule: rhythm, specificity, banned vocabulary, and the calibration gate. - Read the target document in full (the
file:<path>argument, or the pasted text). Never review a draft you have only skimmed.
Phase 1: Structural pass
- Select one document model from
reference/editorial-review.md(proposal arc, intel-brief arc, investor-narrative arc, argument/decision-note arc, or a generic model). State the choice and its primary rule in one sentence. The form is "This deliverable should follow the {model}; its primary rule is {rule}." - Map the structure — list each major section with an approximate word count. This forces measurement before recommendation.
- Walk the defect checklist. It covers the orphan section, claim-without-evidence, evidence-without-claim, the buried lede, and flat hierarchy. It also covers redundant paragraphs, missing scaffolding, no document-level stance, and scope violation.
- Emit findings. Tag each with exactly one operation, a one-sentence rationale, and a word-impact estimate. The operations are CUT, MERGE, MOVE, CONDENSE, SPLIT, ADD, PROMOTE, DEMOTE, PRESERVE, and QUESTION. PRESERVE protects comprehension aids from over-cutting, because summaries and examples are reinforcement, not redundancy.
- Close with the summary block. It carries total recommendations, estimated reduction with its percentage of the original, the meets-length-target verdict, and comprehension trade-offs.
- Optional — pull a critique method. For a hard restructure, run
python "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}"/scripts/elicit.py show "Critique and Refine"or"Red Team vs Blue Team"from the shared elicitation catalog. Apply it to the argument arc. Skip it when the checklist already bites. - APPROVAL GATE. Present the findings. Apply NO structural edit until the CEO approves (per
.claude/rules/voice.md: no structural changes without approval). "No substantive changes recommended — the structure is sound" is a valid, explicit completion. On approval, apply only the approved operations, editing structure (move/cut/merge/condense), never wording.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 103 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A a8792bfb5095
editorial-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository mishahanin/heading-os-marketplace (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 1,577 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to editorial-review, differing in 7 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
domain-modeling
Use when pinning down domain terminology, building a ubiquitous language or project glossary, disambiguating overloaded or vague terms, or maintaining a CONTEXT.md — or when another skill needs to sharpen the domain model. Do NOT use for recording architectural decisions or for writing implementation specs.
code-review
Iterative, human-in-the-loop code review that detects gaps, presents them for selection, and fixes them in cycles. Supports both diff-based PR review and holistic codebase analysis.
address-pr-review
Address reviewer and bot comments on a GitHub pull request — validate each comment, apply fixes where valid, reply with reasoning, and resolve threads.
interview
Deep requirements gathering through probing questions that surface hidden requirements, edge cases, and trade-offs before implementation.
ideate
Facilitate brainstorming as a thinking partner that extracts and expands latent ideas rather than generating them outright.
writing-artifacts
Use when writing or revising a durable written artifact — README, ADR, design doc, PR description, release notes, runbook, error message, user-facing docs. Gives a positive writing system (reader model, sentence positions, document jobs), not a ban-list. Do NOT use for conversational replies to the user (global…