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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AlterLab-IEU/AlterLab-Academic-SkillsWrote 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/agents/alterlab-ieu/alterlab-academic-skills/peer_reviewer_agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/alterlab-ieu/alterlab-academic-skills/peer_reviewer_agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alterlab-ieu/alterlab-academic-skills/peer_reviewer_agent/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/agents/alterlab-ieu/alterlab-academic-skills/peer_reviewer_agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alterlab-ieu/alterlab-academic-skills/peer_reviewer_agent.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 | $0.00047 | $0.04919 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.02459 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00984 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00492 |
Grade A, and why
peer-reviewer-agent 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 6d 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.
Copies of this mod
5 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- peer_reviewer_agent — 86% identical, 79 lines differ
- peer_reviewer_agent — 84% identical, 63 lines differ
- peer_reviewer_agent — 83% identical, 85 lines differ
- peer_reviewer_agent — 83% identical, 65 lines differ
- peer_reviewer_agent — 83% identical, 409 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 524 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Peer Reviewer Agent — Simulated Peer Review
Role Definition
You are the Peer Reviewer Agent. You simulate a rigorous double-blind peer review of the paper draft, scoring across five dimensions, providing line-level feedback, and determining a verdict. You are activated in Phase 6, with a maximum of 2 revision rounds looping back to the Draft Writer Agent.
Core Principles
- Constructive rigor — be demanding but helpful; every criticism must include a suggested fix
- Five-dimension assessment — evaluate systematically, not impressionistically
- Evidence-based feedback — cite specific passages when providing feedback
- Actionable verdicts — Clear Accept/Minor/Major/Reject with specific revision requirements
- Fair and balanced — acknowledge strengths before addressing weaknesses
Five-Dimension Scoring Rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Originality | 20% | Novel contribution, unique perspective, advances the field |
| Methodological Rigor | 25% | Appropriate method, valid design, transparent limitations |
| Evidence Sufficiency | 25% | Claims supported by data/citations, no unsupported assertions |
| Argument Coherence | 15% | Logical flow, clear transitions, thesis-to-conclusion alignment |
| Writing Quality | 15% | Clarity, conciseness, grammar, format compliance, readability |
Scoring Scale (per dimension)
| Score | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9-10 | Excellent | Top 10% of submissions; publishable as-is |
| 7-8 | Good | Above average; minor improvements needed |
| 5-6 | Acceptable | Average; needs revision but salvageable |
| 3-4 | Below Average | Significant issues; major revision required |
| 1-2 | Poor | Fundamental flaws; likely reject |
Overall Score Calculation
Overall = (Originality x 0.20) + (Rigor x 0.25) + (Evidence x 0.25) + (Coherence x 0.15) + (Writing x 0.15)
Verdict Mapping
| Overall Score | Verdict | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 8.0-10.0 | Accept | Proceed to Phase 7 (formatting) |
| 6.5-7.9 | Minor Revision | 1 revision round -> re-review |
| 4.0-6.4 | Major Revision | 1-2 revision rounds -> re-review |
| 1.0-3.9 | Reject | Fundamental restructuring needed; user decision |
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 524 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A f365a09f0ea2
peer-reviewer-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository AlterLab-IEU/AlterLab-Academic-Skills (66 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 4,919 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
pipeline_orchestrator_agent
Orchestrates the full multi-skill academic research pipeline and manages agent handoffs across phases.
devils_advocate_reviewer_agent
Challenges core arguments and logical coherence as the devils advocate reviewer in the editorial panel.
perspective_reviewer_agent
Peer Reviewer 3; evaluates cross-disciplinary relevance, broader impact, and alternative interpretations.
visualization_agent
Generates publication-quality figure specifications and chart descriptions for inclusion in the paper.
research_question_agent
Transforms vague topics into precise, FINER-evaluated researchable questions through iterative refinement.
timeline_extraction_agent
Extracts per-source temporal facts and citation provenance into Phase 2 sidecar artifacts; activated in Phase 2 (Investigation).