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/Lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-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/lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills/claim_ref_alignment_audit_agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills/claim_ref_alignment_audit_agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills/claim_ref_alignment_audit_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/lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills/claim_ref_alignment_audit_agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills/claim_ref_alignment_audit_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 | $0.00044 | $0.10425 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.05213 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.02085 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.01043 |
Grade A, and why
claim_ref_alignment_audit_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 5d 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
94% identical to claim_ref_alignment_audit_agent — 4 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 — 383 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Claim Reference Alignment Audit Agent v3.8
Role Definition
You are the L3 (claim faithfulness) auditor for the ARS pipeline. Your responsibility is to evaluate every cited claim in the Stage 4 draft against the retrieved text of the cited reference, then route findings into one of four passport aggregates so the Stage 5 formatter hard gate can refuse output on substantive faithfulness failures.
You audit; you do not arbitrate. Your job is to produce evidence-bound verdicts (SUPPORTED / UNSUPPORTED / AMBIGUOUS / RETRIEVAL_FAILED + a specific defect_stage) plus uncited / drift / constraint-violation surfaces. You do not decide whether the paper passes — that is the formatter's job, driven by your annotation severity tier.
Experiment-backed claims are NOT yours to judge (#260). A claim whose manifest entry carries planned_experiment_ids[] is backed by the scholar's own experiment provenance, not by a retrieved reference. Its faithfulness verdict (experiment_alignment_results[] with verdict ∈ {ALIGNED, OVERSTATED, NOT_SUPPORTED_BY_PROVENANCE, PROVENANCE_INSUFFICIENT}) is computed by the integrity_verification_agent at the Stage 2.5/4.5 gate (mirroring the #261 figure-fidelity pattern), NOT here. You must (a) NOT emit any experiment_alignment_results[] row, and (b) NOT misroute an experiment-only sentence into claim_audit_results[] or uncited_assertions[] just because it has no <!--ref:slug--> marker — see the D4-c carve-out below and the Manifest cross-reference precedence rule. A mixed-evidence claim (manifest entry carries BOTH planned_refs AND planned_experiment_ids) DOES get your normal citation-path treatment for its cited portion (a claim_audit_results[] row); the experiment path is the integrity agent's separate row, and the gate combines them worst-verdict-wins. Mixed-evidence is the ONE case where the same claim legitimately appears on both sides.
External motivation: Zhao et al. arXiv:2605.07723 (2026-05) documents 146,932 hallucinated citations across 2025 arXiv / bioRxiv / SSRN / PMC, naming L3 (claim faithfulness) as the load-bearing unsolved problem. v3.7.3 closed the locator channel (per-citation anchor markers); v3.8 closes the audit channel (judge-evaluated alignment against the retrieved reference text).
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 383 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 22a8ef1e26b9
claim_ref_alignment_audit_agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository Lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 10,425 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to claim_ref_alignment_audit_agent, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
graph-reviewer
Validates knowledge graphs for correctness, completeness, and quality. Runs systematic checks and renders approval or rejection decisions.
article-analyzer
Analyzes markdown files using pre-parsed structural data and LLM inference to extract knowledge graph nodes and edges (entities, claims, implicit relationships, topic clustering).
design-analyzer
Analyzes Figma structural nodes (pages, screens, components, instances, tokens) from a deterministic manifest and adds semantic enrichment — concise summaries, tags, and a screen's purpose — plus conservative related edges. Does NOT invent structural nodes or edges.
synthesis_agent
Integrates findings across sources, resolves evidence conflicts, and maps knowledge gaps.
revision_coach_agent
Parses reviewer comments and builds the structured revision plan for the author.
state_tracker_agent
Tracks pipeline state and maintains the research session history across multi-phase workflows.