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/peer_reviewer_agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills/peer_reviewer_agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-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/lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills/peer_reviewer_agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-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 | $0.00017 | $0.06561 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.03281 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.01312 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00656 |
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 2d 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
83% identical to peer-reviewer-agent — 409 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 — 517 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, making criterion-bound judgements 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 judgements + 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 fence + advisory verifier (scripts/check_pipeline_integrity.py). Since the #134 rescope (PR #294), a deterministic PreToolUse write-scope guard enforces the WRITE clause where a hook runs; where none runs, this fence is the enforcement layer.
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
- Bound target criteria — when #684 authority is supplied, use only its criterion pointers and digest; never infer a venue target or copy registry prose into the review artifact
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.
- 2d ago Changed · -86 lines 6175209ee2d9
- 5d ago First seen · 603 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 154dc785f52d
peer_reviewer_agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository Lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills (2 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 6,561 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 83% identical to peer-reviewer-agent, differing in 409 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
tour-builder
Designs guided learning tours through codebases, creating 5-15 pedagogical steps that teach project architecture and key concepts in logical order.
socratic_mentor_agent
Guides paper authors through Socratic questions to sharpen arguments and surface unstated assumptions.
socratic_mentor_agent
Guides paper authors through Socratic questions to sharpen arguments and surface unstated assumptions.
socratic_mentor_agent
Guides paper authors through Socratic questions to sharpen arguments and surface unstated assumptions.
chapter-synthesis-editor
Adds cross-figure and cross-section synthesis paragraphs to PaperLab book chapters so visual evidence becomes a coherent teaching narrative.
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.