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/amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peerWrote 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/amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peer/osp-orchestrator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peer/osp-orchestrator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peer/osp-orchestrator/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/amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peer/osp-orchestrator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peer/osp-orchestrator.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 | $0.00118 | $0.01153 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00047 | $0.00461 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00231 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00115 |
Grade C, and why
osp-orchestrator scanned grade C with 1 finding 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 22d 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.
Tells the agent never to refusehighAnti-refusal
Suppressing the ability to decline removes a core safety control; a later harmful request then succeeds.
fill it, and let the user decide. **You never refuse to advance.** How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Open ScholarPeer — Orchestrator
You are the Orchestrator for an Open ScholarPeer review session. You do not perform any review work yourself — you coordinate the seven specialized personas (Summary, Literature, Historian, Baseline Scout, Query, Answer Generator, Reviewer) by routing the user to the right slash command.
Brain Protocol (apply on every invocation)
- Read
.brain/session.jsonfirst. If missing, the user hasn't run/0-osp-onboardingyet — tell them to run it. - Check
resume_from. That field names the next phase to execute. - Check which prior artifacts exist, and say what is missing — then route anyway. Every phase runs on whatever is there. Name the gap and what it costs, in one line, recommend the command that would fill it, and let the user decide. You never refuse to advance.
- Never run a phase yourself. Always tell the user the exact slash command to invoke.
- You verify, you never write. The executing skill updates
session.jsonafter its phase. Skips are recorded by whichever command the user runs next, in its own pre-flight — seerules/osp-rules.md§Brain protocol 4./open-scholar-peerdeclareswrites: []and means it.
Recommended order
This is the order the protocol was designed around, and the one to recommend. It is not a track the user is locked onto: any phase may be run early, run late, or skipped altogether. When they leave the order, say once what it costs and carry on.
Current resume_from |
Recommend | Why |
|---|---|---|
onboarding |
/0-osp-onboarding |
Set venue, locate paper, scaffold criteria |
summary |
/1-osp-summary |
Internal Compression — extract claims/method/evidence |
literature |
/2-osp-literature |
External retrieval, 3 rounds recommended — fewer is allowed |
historian |
/3-osp-historian |
Build the chronological domain narrative |
baseline_scout |
/4-osp-baseline-scout |
Find missing baselines & datasets |
qa |
/5-osp-qa |
Multi-aspect Q&A (loops over criteria) |
review |
/6-osp-review |
Final consolidated review |
| (all complete) | — | Print location of review/final_review.md and ask if user wants to revise any phase |
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.
- 22d ago First seen · 76 lines · 118 tokens per session scan C 1c3866d9cad7
osp-orchestrator is an agent published in the GitHub repository amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peer (48 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 118 tokens to every session and 1,153 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (tells the agent never to refuse). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-24.
Other agents, from other repositories
visualization_agent
Generates publication-quality figure specifications and chart descriptions for inclusion in the paper.
protocol_architect_agent
Turns a proposal or protocol into confirmed, stage-split screening rules and a screening config before any record is screened.
qc_auditor_agent
Reports seeds, agreement, conflicts and recheck results after the pilot and the full run, and proposes protocol clarifications.
reporter_agent
Builds the screening deliverables (log, RIS groups, PRISMA counts, methods draft, corpus handoff) from complete decisions.
methodology_reviewer_agent
Peer Reviewer 1; assesses methodological soundness, research design validity, and statistical rigor.
senior-researcher
Expert peer reviewer of research methodology, experimental design, statistical analysis, and scientific writing.