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/commands/nguyenvanduocit/research-kit/validate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/nguyenvanduocit/research-kit/validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nguyenvanduocit/research-kit/validate/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/commands/nguyenvanduocit/research-kit/validate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/nguyenvanduocit/research-kit/validate.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 | $0.00012 | $0.00648 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00259 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00130 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
validate 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 1mo 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 — 87 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
Outline
This command validates the research methodology to ensure it's sound, feasible, and ethical. Run this after /research.methodology and before /research.tasks.
-
Load methodology from
research/###-topic-name/methodology.md -
Load research definition from
research/###-topic-name/definition.md -
Load research principles from
principles/research-principles.md -
Perform validation checks:
A. Methodological Rigor:
- ✓ Research design appropriate for research questions
- ✓ Data sources adequate to answer questions
- ✓ Analysis approach suitable for data type
- ✓ Potential biases identified and mitigation planned
- ✓ Limitations acknowledged
- ⚠ Flag if methodology unclear or inconsistent
B. Feasibility:
- ✓ Timeline realistic for scope
- ✓ Data sources accessible
- ✓ Required tools/resources available
- ✓ Expertise requirements reasonable
- ⚠ Flag if resource/time constraints make research infeasible
C. Ethical Compliance:
- ✓ Ethics considerations addressed (human subjects, data privacy, etc.)
- ✓ Conflicts of interest disclosed
- ✓ Bias mitigation strategies defined
- ✓ Source credibility criteria established
- ⚠ Flag if ethical issues unaddressed
D. Alignment:
- ✓ Methodology addresses all research questions
- ✓ Approach aligns with success criteria
- ✓ Deliverables achievable with methodology
- ✓ Scope boundaries respected
- ⚠ Flag if misalignment detected
E. Completeness:
- ✓ All required methodology sections present
- ✓ Data collection methods specified
- ✓ Analysis frameworks defined
- ✓ Timeline/phases outlined
- ⚠ Flag if critical sections missing
-
Generate validation report:
- Create
research/###-topic-name/validation-report.md - Summary of validation results
- List of passed checks (✓)
- List of warnings/concerns (⚠)
- Recommendations for improvements
- Go/no-go recommendation
- Create
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 87 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A f2cede652062
validate is a command published in the GitHub repository nguyenvanduocit/research-kit (20 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 648 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It comes from a forked repository.
Other commands, from other repositories
verify-math
Verify a self-authored mathematical result end to end by routing claims across adversarial review, numerical falsification, symbolic or CAS checks, and Lean, then aggregating one report. Use when a theorem, proposition, conjecture, or paper-wide mathematical argument needs the appropriate combination of verification…
diff
Quantitative volume comparison between a CadQuery model and a reference STEP file.
arg-diagram
ARG academic-paper diagram mode — standalone structural & conceptual diagram generation.
plot
Publication Polish. Runs after results-analysis (Phase 7). Audits all tables and figures produced in Phases 4–7, upgrades them to top-journal standards by calling the table and figure skills.
graphite-morphology-classify
Classify graphite in a cast-iron micrograph per ASTM A247 / ISO 945-1, quantify nodularity, and read the matrix — the single most diagnostic observation in a cast-iron case.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.