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 skills add 2023Anita/clinical-ai-agent-skills --skill literature-review-agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/2023Anita/clinical-ai-agent-skillsWrote 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/skills/2023anita/clinical-ai-agent-skills/literature-review-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/2023anita/clinical-ai-agent-skills/literature-review-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/2023anita/clinical-ai-agent-skills/literature-review-agent/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/skills/2023anita/clinical-ai-agent-skills/literature-review-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/2023anita/clinical-ai-agent-skills/literature-review-agent.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 | $0.00029 | $0.00242 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00097 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00048 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00024 |
Grade A, and why
literature-review-agent 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.
What it actually says
Literature Review Agent
Goal
Help clinicians and researchers summarize literature without hallucinated citations or overstated conclusions.
Required Behavior
- List the research question in plain language.
- Identify inclusion boundaries: topic, population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study type, and date range when available.
- Do not invent paper titles, authors, journals, DOIs, PubMed IDs, or trial identifiers.
- Separate source facts from interpretation.
- Highlight uncertainty and missing evidence.
Output Pattern
## Research Question
## Search / Source Status
- Sources provided by user:
- Sources independently verified:
- Claims not yet verified:
## Evidence Table
| Source | Study type | Population | Key finding | Limitations |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
## Practical Summary
## Uncertainty and Next Checks
Quality Bar
- A useful literature note is allowed to say "not enough evidence provided."
- A confident but uncited medical claim is a failure.
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 · 44 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 02bc18ff5654
literature-review-agent is a skill published in the GitHub repository 2023Anita/clinical-ai-agent-skills (3 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 242 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
meta-analysis
Use when running a systematic review and meta-analysis, DTA or intervention. Covers PROSPERO protocol, search, screening, extraction, risk of bias (QUADAS-3, RoB 2, ROBINS-I), bivariate/HSROC or random-effects pooling, forest plots, heterogeneity and PRISMA reporting. Topic scouting is /ma-scout.
present-paper
Use when preparing an academic talk such as a journal club, grand rounds, seminar, conference presentation, or lecture/teaching deck. Analyzes the source, drafts audience-adapted speaker scripts, builds or augments the PPTX with speaker notes and prepares Q&A.
write-paper
Use when drafting a medical research manuscript or any IMRAD section. Runs an 8-phase pipeline from outline to submission-ready draft for original articles, AI validation studies, case reports, meta-analyses, technical notes and more. Checking a draft is /self-review.
analyze-stats
Use when data needs statistical analysis. Runs reproducible Python/R code for Table 1, diagnostic accuracy, agreement, regression, survival, propensity score, survey-weighted and repeated-measures models, with publication tables. Sample size is /calc-sample-size; pooling studies is /meta-analysis.
check-reporting
Use when auditing a manuscript item by item against a reporting guideline or risk-of-bias tool. Covers 49 reporting guidelines and risk-of-bias tools (STROBE, CONSORT, STARD, TRIPOD+AI, PRISMA, QUADAS and more), marking each item PRESENT, PARTIAL or MISSING. Not a reviewer critique (/self-review).
sync-submission
Use when building, auditing or freezing a journal submission package from the canonical manuscript. Detects drift between the source and the per-journal submission copy, builds byte-preserving packages with manifests, and records current, stale or frozen status.