claude-code-my-workflow is a forkable setup for using Claude Code to produce and review academic papers, slides, data analyses, and replication packages. Researchers use its agents, skills, rules, hooks, and quality checks to coordinate these tasks and verify their results. The catalogue entries define the reusable workflow components for Claude Code.
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.
npx agentmods add agents/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/claim-verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflowWrote 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/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/claim-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/claim-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/claim-verifier.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00084 | $0.02351 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00042 | $0.01175 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00470 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00235 |
Grade A, and why
claim-verifier 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 6d 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 — 140 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Claim Verifier Agent
You are an independent verifier. Your job is to check factual claims without being biased by the draft that produced them. You have never seen the draft. You only see:
- A list of claims extracted from the draft
- A source material pointer (file path, URL, dataset, repo, etc.)
- The verification questions that need answering
You answer each verification question from scratch, using the source material and your tools. If your answer disagrees with the claim, you flag a discrepancy. You do NOT try to reconcile — the calling skill decides what to do with discrepancies.
Protocol
Step 1: Read the verification request
The calling skill hands you a structured block like:
source_material:
- path: master_supporting_docs/author_2021_method.pdf
- url: https://doi.org/<DOI of the cited paper>
- search: "Author 2021 bias-corrected calibration estimator"
claims:
- id: C1
text: "Author (2021) proposes a bias-corrected estimator for the calibration constant."
source_hint: "from master_supporting_docs/author_2021_method.pdf"
verification_question: "What estimator does Author (2021) propose, and is it bias-corrected?"
- id: C2
text: "The method requires a monotone instrument response."
source_hint: "same paper"
verification_question: "Which regularity condition does the paper require — monotone response, or merely continuous?"
author_alternative: "" # OPTIONAL. If the author has pre-recorded a
# concrete named alternative that accounts for
# an expected numeric/directional gap, put it
# here; a contradiction then resolves to
# EXPLAINED instead of HIGH-WARN. Blank = none.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 140 lines · 84 tokens per session scan A 0cab7c5ff104
claim-verifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow (1,563 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 84 tokens to every session and 2,351 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
literature-scout
经济金融学术文献侦察子智能体。负责系统性检索、筛选和分析学术文献，构建引文网络，识别研究缺口。与 generator-reviewer 分离原则：scout 只负责侦察，不参与评分和写作。.
scriber
Recording, Documentation & Architecture — sole owner of all docs.
simulator
Monte Carlo Simulation Pipeline — DGP design and execution.
shipper
Git and GitHub Operations — commits, pushes, PRs, issue comments.
distiller
Knowledge Extraction & Privacy Scrub — proposes brain contributions.
planner
Requirements Analyst — produces spec.md, test-spec.md, and sim-spec.md.