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 SebastianElvis/reaper --skill clarify-goalgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/SebastianElvis/reaperWrote 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/sebastianelvis/reaper/clarify-goal)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sebastianelvis/reaper/clarify-goal"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sebastianelvis/reaper/clarify-goal/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/sebastianelvis/reaper/clarify-goal"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sebastianelvis/reaper/clarify-goal.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 | $0.00062 | $0.01076 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00538 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00215 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00108 |
Grade A, and why
clarify-goal 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 12d 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 — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Clarify Goal
Ask the user targeted questions to sharpen a vague research goal into something the pipeline can act on precisely.
Usage
Invoke this skill by name with the research goal (and optional paper path). On slash-command hosts, prefix with / (e.g. /clarify-goal "<goal>").
# Without a paper — goal-driven research
clarify-goal "explore the feasibility of post-quantum threshold signatures"
# With a paper
clarify-goal "is this protocol secure?" path/to/paper.pdf
Argument parsing: The research goal (quoted string) is required. If a path to an existing file is also provided, treat it as the paper.
Instructions
1. Read the Paper (quick scan) — if provided
If a paper path was provided: Read the paper at the given path. Do a fast scan — you are not producing a full analysis, just enough to understand:
- What the paper is about (topic, system, protocol)
- What it claims (main theorems, security properties, performance results)
- Its structure (which sections cover what)
If no paper was provided: Skip this step. You will clarify the goal based on the research prompt alone, using your knowledge of the research domain.
2. Identify Ambiguities
Compare the user's research goal against what the paper contains (if provided) or against the research domain in general. Look for:
- Scope ambiguity: Does the goal apply to a whole paper/field or specific sections/theorems/protocols?
- Definition ambiguity: Does the goal use terms that could mean multiple things? (e.g., "secure" — against what adversary? under what model?)
- Success criteria ambiguity: What would a satisfying answer look like? A counterexample? A proof gap? A performance bound?
- Assumption ambiguity: Are there implicit assumptions the user might want to constrain or relax? (e.g., synchrony vs. asynchrony, static vs. adaptive adversary)
- Comparison ambiguity: If the goal involves comparison ("is this better than X?"), what metric and what baseline?
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 103 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 99073dfbd38c
clarify-goal is a skill published in the GitHub repository SebastianElvis/reaper (9 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 1,076 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
literature-review-agent
Step 3 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Execute the literature search strategy from outline.json — discover candidate papers via web search, verify them through Semantic Scholar (Levenshtein > 70 fuzzy title match, temporal cutoff, dedup by paperId), cross-corroborate against Crossref + OpenAlex to…
agent-research-aggregator
Pre-pipeline aggregator that scans AI agent cache directories (.claude, .cursor, .antigravity, .openclaw) or any user-specified directory for experimentation logs, extracts insights and numeric results, and formats them as PaperOrchestra-ready inputs (idea.md + experimentallog.md). TRIGGER when the user says…
content-refinement-agent
Step 5 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Iteratively refine drafts/paper.tex by simulating peer review and applying targeted revisions, with strict accept/revert halt rules, deterministic 0-100 decision bands (Accept/Minor/Major/Reject) that drive a target-met early stop, and a Devil's Advocate…
paper-orchestra
Orchestrate the full PaperOrchestra (Song et al., 2026, arXiv:2604.05018) five-agent pipeline to turn unstructured research materials (idea, experimental log, LaTeX template, conference guidelines, optional figures) into a submission-ready LaTeX manuscript and compiled PDF. TRIGGER when the user asks to "write a paper…
section-writing-agent
Step 4 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). ONE single multimodal LLM call that drafts the remaining paper sections (Abstract, Methodology, Experiments, Conclusion), extracts numeric values from experimentallog.md into LaTeX booktabs tables, splices the generated figures from Step 2, and merges…
plotting-agent
Step 2 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Execute the visualization plan from outline.json — render plots and conceptual diagrams from experimentallog.md and idea.md, optionally refine via VLM critique loop, and produce context-aware captions. Runs in parallel with the literature-review-agent. TRIGGER…