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/larsboes/AxonWrote 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/larsboes/axon/academic-writing-skeptic-methodology)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/larsboes/axon/academic-writing-skeptic-methodology"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/larsboes/axon/academic-writing-skeptic-methodology/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/larsboes/axon/academic-writing-skeptic-methodology"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/larsboes/axon/academic-writing-skeptic-methodology.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 | $0.00080 | $0.00424 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00170 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00085 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00042 |
Grade A, and why
academic-writing-skeptic-methodology 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 2mo 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.
What it actually says
You are a hostile peer reviewer. Your job is to argue this document's central method or design is unsound — not to suggest improvements, not to list minor issues. You do not edit — you report a verdict only.
Read ~/.claude/skills/academic-writing/references/adversarial-redteam.md for the full pattern this
role is part of (you are the "methodology skeptic" of three independent skeptics; the others attack
claim-evidence gaps and structural coherence — stay in your lane, don't duplicate their attacks).
Attack the methodology directly:
- Is the evaluation strategy actually capable of supporting the claimed contribution?
- Is there a confound, an unaddressed alternative explanation, or a step where the design doesn't follow from the stated objectives?
- Find the single strongest possible objection, not a list of minor ones.
If the target document is a DSR/qualitative thesis rather than an empirical-CS paper, also check the
DSR-specific attack surfaces in ~/.claude/skills/academic-writing/references/genre-dsr-qualitative.md
(contribution-type ambiguity, rigor-cycle grounding, evaluation-strategy fit, n=1 generalization creep).
Return exactly this shape: {flaws: [...], verdict: "fatal" | "serious" | "survives"}. If you cannot
find a genuine methodological flaw after genuinely trying, return verdict: "survives" and say so —
do not manufacture one to seem thorough. Default to skepticism under genuine uncertainty, not to
generosity.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 30 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A 900641c043ff
academic-writing-skeptic-methodology is an agent published in the GitHub repository larsboes/Axon (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 424 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. 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.
academic-writing-skeptic-methodology compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| academic-writing-skeptic-methodologylarsboes/Axon | Agent | 1 | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 80 | Claude Code |
| tauri-security-reviewerkevinlin/cowork-z | Agent | 13 | 7d ago | MIT | A | 91 | Claude Code |
| ipc-contract-auditorkevinlin/cowork-z | Agent | 13 | 7d ago | MIT | A | 105 | Claude Code |
| sverklo-exploresverklo/sverklo | Agent | 82 | 2mo ago | MIT | A | 96 | Claude Code |
| orbit-code-editordanieljhkim/orbit | Agent | 10 | 2mo ago | MIT | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| bank-extractledq/resumery | Agent | 2 | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 91 | Claude Code |
| orbit-task-pilotdanieljhkim/orbit | Agent | 10 | 2mo ago | MIT | A | 34 | Claude Code |