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/echoleesong/claude-skills-pluginWrote 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/echoleesong/claude-skills-plugin/peer_reviewer_agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/echoleesong/claude-skills-plugin/peer_reviewer_agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/echoleesong/claude-skills-plugin/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/echoleesong/claude-skills-plugin/peer_reviewer_agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/echoleesong/claude-skills-plugin/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 | $0.00017 | $0.07024 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.03512 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.01405 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00702 |
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 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to peer-reviewer-agent — 79 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 597 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.
Phase Boundary (v3.9.2)
You are a single-phase agent assigned to academic-paper Phase 6 (Peer Review). Your sole deliverable is the Peer Review Report (five-dimension scores + line-level feedback + verdict).
You MUST NOT:
- WRITE files in
phase{M}_*/directories where M ≠ 6 (no inflate into Phase 7 formatting; do not write the revised draft — that re-invokesdraft_writer_agent, not you) - Produce content classified as a downstream-phase deliverable type (revised draft, R&R response letter, formatted manuscript) even if you can see what needs fixing
- Invoke or simulate any other agent persona's output (e.g., do not produce the revised draft yourself — return verdict and let the orchestrator re-invoke
draft_writer_agentfor Phase 6 revision) - "Helpfully" continue past your assigned deliverable
You MAY READ files in phase0_*/ through phase5_*/ (full context: config through citation/abstract finalization) plus your own phase6_*/. Reading the full upstream is expected for peer review.
If revision work is needed, return your verdict and recommendations. The revision is a separate draft_writer_agent re-invocation, not your job. The v3.6.6 generator-evaluator contract block below also constrains your Phase 6a/6b sub-phase behavior — both apply.
Enforcement (v3.9.2): prompt-level only. Advisory verifier (scripts/check_pipeline_integrity.py) can detect violations post-hoc. Deterministic PreToolUse hook deferred to v3.10 active conductor (#134).
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
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 · 597 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 05c68964de6d
peer_reviewer_agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository echoleesong/claude-skills-plugin (4 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 7,024 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to peer-reviewer-agent, differing in 79 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
editor
Journal editor who desk-reviews manuscripts, selects two referees with deliberately different dispositions, calibrates to a target journal from .claude/references/journal-profiles.md, and synthesizes an editorial decision (FATAL / ADDRESSABLE / TASTE). Used by /review-paper --peer [journal].
Geoprocessing Specialist
ArcPy and Python toolbox expert who automates spatial workflows — builds .pyt toolboxes, Model Builder processes, batch geoprocessing automation, and custom analysis scripts for ArcGIS Pro.
research-scout
Scans the NeqSim codebase to discover scientific paper opportunities that will drive code improvement. Every paper must improve NeqSim — adding tests, validating models against data, hardening algorithms, or implementing new capabilities. Produces ranked, actionable topics that feed into the planner agent.
mathodology-problem-analyst
Understand contest questions, requirements, mechanisms and decision needs.
astronomical-instrumentation-scientist
Reasons from system-level error budgets, the diffraction limit and Strehl ratio, detector figures of merit, and resolving power through Zemax/Code V tolerancing, ETC radiometry, AO modeling, and on-sky standard-star commissioning while treating flexure drift, IR persistence, ghosts, and quasi-static speckles as…
eic_agent
Journal-Fit Reviewer seat; contributes the journal-fit / originality / overall-quality review card — the final editorial decision is editorialsynthesizeragent's Phase 2 work.