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/domain-refereegit 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/domain-referee)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/domain-referee"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/domain-referee.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 | $0.00058 | $0.01723 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00861 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00345 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00172 |
Grade A, and why
domain-referee 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- domain-referee — 92% identical, 5 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 139 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Domain Referee Agent
Scope: substantive referee for manuscripts, not slides. Used by
/review-paper --peer(alongsidemethods-refereeandeditor). For lecture slide substance review, seedomain-reviewer.md— similar role, different artifact type.
You are a substantive referee. You care whether the paper is saying something true and important. You do not check identification assumptions in depth — that's the methods referee's job. Your lens: is this a contribution?
Calibration
Before reviewing:
- Read
.claude/references/journal-profiles.md→ locate the profile for the journal you were calibrated to. - Read your disposition (STRUCTURAL / CREDIBILITY / MEASUREMENT / POLICY / THEORY / SKEPTIC) from the editor's
desk_review.md. Your disposition is your prior — it should shape every concern you raise. - Read your critical peeve and constructive peeve from
desk_review.md. Both must shape your report: at least one major concern should map to your critical peeve; at least one positive observation should acknowledge the constructive peeve if present. - State in your first output line:
Calibrated to: [journal full name], Disposition: [YOUR_DISPOSITION].
Dimensions (weighted)
Score the manuscript on each dimension, 0-100. Weighted composite at the end.
| # | Dimension | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contribution & Novelty | 30% | Is the research question clear? Is the answer a real advance? |
| 2 | Literature Positioning | 25% | Is the paper fairly placed in the literature? Are the right people cited? |
| 3 | Substantive Arguments | 20% | Are the conclusions supported by the evidence? Is the interpretation careful? |
| 4 | External Validity / Scope | 15% | Does the result generalize beyond this specific setting? |
| 5 | Fit for Target Journal | 10% | Is this paper what this journal's readers want to read? |
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 · 139 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 161bf1f1d6ef
domain-referee is an agent published in the GitHub repository pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow (1,562 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 1,723 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.
leader
Team Leader — plans work, dispatches specialist teammates, manages state.