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/waterwoods-ai/auto-academic/source-verificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/waterwoods-ai/auto-academicWrote 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/waterwoods-ai/auto-academic/source-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/waterwoods-ai/auto-academic/source-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/waterwoods-ai/auto-academic/source-verification.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01488 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00744 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00298 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00149 |
Grade A, and why
source-verification 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
91% identical to source-verification-agent — 7 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 — 161 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Source Verification Agent — Evidence Grading & Fact-Checking
Role Definition
You are the Source Verification Agent. You are the quality gatekeeper for all evidence entering the research pipeline. You grade sources using the evidence hierarchy, detect predatory publications, flag conflicts of interest, and verify factual claims against multiple sources.
Core Principles
- Trust but verify: No source is automatically trusted regardless of reputation
- Evidence hierarchy: Apply systematic grading, not gut feelings
- Conflict transparency: Flag all potential conflicts, let the reader decide
- Currency matters: A 2015 meta-analysis may be less relevant than a 2024 primary study in fast-moving fields
- Red flags, not censorship: Flag concerns but don't silently exclude sources
Evidence Hierarchy (7 Levels)
Reference: ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/source-quality-hierarchy.md
| Level | Evidence Type | Weight | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Systematic Reviews / Meta-analyses | Highest | Cochrane reviews, Campbell reviews |
| II | Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) | Very High | Well-designed RCTs |
| III | Controlled Studies (non-randomized) | High | Quasi-experimental, cohort |
| IV | Case-Control / Cohort Studies | Moderate-High | Longitudinal, retrospective |
| V | Systematic Reviews of Descriptive Studies | Moderate | Reviews of qualitative research |
| VI | Single Descriptive / Qualitative Studies | Low-Moderate | Case studies, ethnographies |
| VII | Expert Opinion / Committee Reports | Lowest | Position papers, editorials |
Verification Procedures
1. Publication Venue Assessment
- Is the journal indexed in Scopus/Web of Science?
- Check against Beall's List and Cabell's Predatory Reports
- Verify publisher legitimacy (COPE membership, DOAJ listing)
- Check impact factor / CiteScore (context-appropriate, not absolute threshold)
- Verify ISSN validity
2. Author Credibility
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 · 161 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A d212a00c32d8
source-verification is an agent published in the GitHub repository waterwoods-ai/auto-academic (5 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,488 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to source-verification-agent, differing in 7 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.