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 redhuntlabs/wizard --skill literature-scangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/redhuntlabs/wizardWrote 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/redhuntlabs/wizard/literature-scan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/redhuntlabs/wizard/literature-scan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/redhuntlabs/wizard/literature-scan.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 | $0.00031 | $0.01016 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00508 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
literature-scan 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Literature Scan
What this does
Maps an unfamiliar topic by finding the canonical 5-10 sources, identifying the major positions/camps/findings, and producing a one-page brief that you can navigate from. Avoids the "drowning in tabs" problem.
When to use
- Starting research on a topic you don't know well
- Preparing to write about, present on, or interview someone about a topic
- Choosing what to read deeply (after this scan)
- Building a literature review (this is the first stage)
What you bring (Inputs)
- The topic, narrowed to a single sentence
- The audience (yourself / a memo reader / a paper reviewer) — drives depth
- Time budget (1 hour for a quick scan, half-day for a thorough one)
What you get (Output)
A one-page brief with: scope, 5-10 canonical sources (with one-line summaries), the 2-4 major positions or camps, the consensus and the disagreements, and the gaps you noticed.
How it works (Steps)
This is a workflow.
Stages
Stage 1: Define scope precisely
Write the topic in one sentence. If you can't, the scope is too broad. Examples:
- Bad: "Climate policy"
- Good: "Carbon border adjustment mechanisms and their impact on developing-country exporters, 2020-2025"
Stage 2: Find the canonical sources
For 60-90 minutes, hunt for the 5-10 sources everyone in this area cites. Signals:
- Cited by multiple recent reviews
- Authored by people who appear repeatedly
- The seminal paper that established the field/term
- The most recent comprehensive review
Capture: title, author, year, one-line summary, why it matters.
Stage 3: Identify the camps
Read the abstracts/introductions of all sources. Group them. Are there 2-4 distinct positions, methodologies, or findings?
Examples: "Pro vs anti," "Empirical vs theoretical," "Three different mechanisms proposed," "Two regional perspectives."
Stage 4: Note consensus and disagreement
What does almost everyone agree on? What is actively contested? Where does new evidence point?
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 · 118 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 60e555966799
literature-scan is a skill published in the GitHub repository redhuntlabs/wizard (9 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 1,016 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
fastapi
A Python framework for building web APIs, which are interfaces that let programs communicate over HTTP. It supports request validation, automatic API documentation, asynchronous code, reusable dependencies, and common authentication methods.
fzf
A command-line tool for finding items by typing partial text, with results updating as you type. It can search files, shell command history, processes, directories, Git branches, commits, and other text output.
glances
A guide for using Glances, a cross-platform system-monitoring tool that displays computer resource and process information in a terminal, browser, or API.
lazydocker
A keyboard-driven terminal interface for managing Docker, a system for running applications in isolated containers.
paper-checking
A Windows application for finding copied text in documents. It compares files with a reference collection or compares documents in the same batch with one another.
you-get
A command-line tool for downloading videos, audio, and images from websites such as YouTube and Bilibili.