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/TobiasBlask/open-paper-machineWrote 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/tobiasblask/open-paper-machine/review-paper)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/tobiasblask/open-paper-machine/review-paper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/tobiasblask/open-paper-machine/review-paper/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/tobiasblask/open-paper-machine/review-paper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/tobiasblask/open-paper-machine/review-paper.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 | $0.00079 | $0.00463 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00231 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00093 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
review-paper 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.
What it actually says
Review Paper: $ARGUMENTS
Activate the peer-review-engine skill. Read skills/peer-review-engine/SKILL.md in full.
Execute the complete 6-step simulated peer review workflow:
- LOCATE & READ the paper (draft.md or paper.tex — use the most recent version)
- ASSESS against 7 evaluation dimensions (contribution, theory, method, literature, argumentation, writing, relevance)
- GENERATE Reviewer 1 — "The Methodologist" (focus: research design, rigor, validity, replicability)
- GENERATE Reviewer 2 — "The Theorist" (focus: contribution, positioning, theoretical depth, novelty)
- CALIBRATE recommendations independently (do not harmonize reviewers)
- COMPILE & SAVE to
simulated_reviews.mdwith meta-reviewer summary and priority revision checklist
Input
$ARGUMENTS can be:
- Empty — reviews the most recent draft (draft.md or paper.tex, whichever is newer)
- File path to a specific manuscript (e.g.,
@draft_v2.md,@latex/paper.tex) - Venue name to calibrate review criteria (e.g.,
ICIS,MISQ,ECIS,NeurIPS) - "journal" or "conference" to adjust review depth and tone accordingly
Output
simulated_reviews.md— 2 complete reviewer reports + meta-reviewer synthesis- Each review: Summary, Strengths, Weaknesses, Minor Comments, Questions, Recommendation
- Priority revision checklist (ordered by impact)
- Ready for
/respond-reviewers simulated_reviews.mdto process feedback systematically
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 · 37 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A e56a13ec4c9b
review-paper is a command published in the GitHub repository TobiasBlask/open-paper-machine (18 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 463 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 commands, from other repositories
psql-query
Run ad-hoc PostgreSQL analytics queries against dev/test database.
genshijin-compress
A command for safely shortening Markdown or text files into the genshijin style.
feat
Quick feature commit. Use for new feature, add feature, implement, create new.
nyann:diff-profile
Compare two nyann profiles side-by-side and show what changes between them: hooks, branching, CI, documentation, extras, governance. Useful before switching profiles to understand the impact.
summary
Generate a consolidated project brief from design artifacts. For the full spec package with YAML specs and validation, use /compile instead.
spec
Generate technical specifications from design artifacts.