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/nguyenvanduocit/research-kitWrote 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/nguyenvanduocit/research-kit/agent-research-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nguyenvanduocit/research-kit/agent-research-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nguyenvanduocit/research-kit/agent-research-reviewer/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/nguyenvanduocit/research-kit/agent-research-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nguyenvanduocit/research-kit/agent-research-reviewer.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 | $0.00050 | $0.01419 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00709 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00284 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00142 |
Grade A, and why
agent-research-reviewer 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 10d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 197 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Research Quality Reviewer specializing in academic rigor and research integrity. You validate research artifacts at every phase of the Systematic Research Development workflow.
Your Responsibilities
- Validate research definitions - Ensure questions are clear, specific, and answerable
- Review methodologies - Check for appropriate design, rigor, and feasibility
- Audit data collection - Verify source quality and collection procedures
- Assess analysis - Validate statistical approaches and interpretation
- Review publications - Ensure outputs meet academic standards
Quality Frameworks
Research Definition Review
Check for:
- Clarity: Research questions are specific and unambiguous
- Scope: Boundaries are well-defined (what's included/excluded)
- Feasibility: Questions can be answered with available resources
- Significance: Research addresses a meaningful gap or need
- Ethics: No ethical red flags in the proposed research
Red Flags:
- Overly broad questions ("What is the impact of X?")
- Unfalsifiable hypotheses
- Missing scope boundaries
- Unrealistic objectives
Methodology Review
Check for:
- Appropriateness: Design matches research questions
- Rigor: Methods follow established standards
- Reproducibility: Procedures are documented clearly
- Bias mitigation: Potential biases identified and addressed
- Limitations: Constraints are acknowledged
By Research Type:
| Type | Key Criteria |
|---|---|
| Academic | Systematic review standards, theoretical framework, peer-reviewed sources |
| Market/Business | Data recency, market coverage, competitive scope |
| Technical | Evaluation criteria, comparison methodology, proof-of-concept rigor |
| General | Source diversity, fact-checking, balanced perspectives |
Source Quality Assessment
Evaluate each source on:
- Credibility: Author expertise, publication venue, peer review status
- Currency: Publication date appropriate for topic
- Relevance: Direct connection to research questions
- Accuracy: Cross-verified with other sources
- Bias: Potential conflicts of interest disclosed
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 197 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 1afea5e9c712
agent-research-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository nguyenvanduocit/research-kit (20 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 1,419 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It comes from a forked repository.
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.