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 yqi96/warranted --skill literature-writinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yqi96/warrantedWrote 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/yqi96/warranted/literature-writing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yqi96/warranted/literature-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yqi96/warranted/literature-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/yqi96/warranted/literature-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yqi96/warranted/literature-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 | $0.00053 | $0.01218 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00609 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00244 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00122 |
Grade A, and why
literature-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 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 — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Graph Mapping
Never cite a paper directly. A citable proposition from a paper first becomes a source="literature" Statement (Ground role); LaTeX then cites that Statement with \cite{statement_N}, where N is the Statement's id. The citation is a pointer into the argument graph, not a bibliography shortcut.
citable proposition from a paper -> literature Statement (Ground role)
paragraph point -> Claim
why findings support the point -> Warrant
methodological authority -> Statement (Backing role)
conflicting paper finding -> Statement (Rebuttal role)
Granularity:
- one paper yields multiple Grounds when it offers multiple distinct citable propositions
- one Ground carries multiple paper attachments when several papers support the same proposition
- different findings, populations, methods, measurements, or scopes are separate Grounds
- convergence across distinct Grounds is a Warrant's job, not a merge into a vague composite Ground
Obligations
Object-layer work in this channel — search, reading, download, BibTeX, prose edits — is valid only when it creates, verifies, cites, or reconciles a literature Statement (Ground role), or a Claim built from such Statements. A searched paper must become a Ground, Backing, or Rebuttal, or be discarded with a reason; it is never accumulated as an inert reading list.
| Graph state | Required action |
|---|---|
| No Claim for a load-bearing paragraph thesis | create_claim, or update the existing Claim |
| A sentence cites a paper for a proposition | Reuse a matching literature Statement, or create_statement(source="literature") and attach the paper |
| A paper provides several relevant propositions | One create_statement(source="literature") per distinct proposition |
| Several papers support the same specific finding | Attach them to the same Statement only when they support the same proposition |
| A literature Statement is cited but not verified | Check the paper supports it, then update_node(verification="verified", attachments=[...]) |
| A Claim has Grounds but no Warrant | create_warrant(ground_ids=[...]) |
| A Warrant needs authority | create_statement(...), then update_node(<warrant>, backing_ids={add:[...]}) |
| A paper contradicts the Claim or Warrant | create_statement(rebuttal_for={target_id, target_type}) |
| The text changes the paragraph thesis | Reconcile the Claim |
| A citation points to the wrong Ground | Point to the correct Statement, or create one; edit an existing Statement only to fix an error, never to fit the sentence |
| Existing LaTeX uses author-year keys | Migrate each: identify the cited proposition, create/reuse its literature Statement, replace the key with statement_N |
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 · 88 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 3ed5f9db52dc
literature-writing is a skill published in the GitHub repository yqi96/warranted (2 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 1,218 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
proof-checker
A mathematical proof review and repair workflow for LaTeX documents. It checks whether a proof has valid reasoning, addresses identified gaps, reviews the fixes, and produces an audit report.
research-lit
Search and analyze research papers, find related work, summarize key ideas. Use when user says "find papers", "related work", "literature review", "what does this paper say", or needs to understand academic papers.
auto-paper-improvement-loop
An automated editing cycle for a compiled research paper: an external language model reviews it, fixes are applied, and the paper is compiled again.
paper-illustration
A workflow for generating academic illustrations, such as architecture diagrams and method visuals, with image generation and repeated review. Claude plans and checks the figure during the process.
paper-write
A workflow for writing a research paper section by section in LaTeX, a text format used to prepare structured technical documents. It starts from a paper outline and supports several academic venues and citation sources.
experiment-bridge
A workflow that turns an experiment plan into code, reviews the code, runs an initial check, deploys experiments, and collects early results. Deployment means sending the experiment to the environment where it will run, such as a GPU machine.