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 agentlas-ai/agentlas-desktop --skill analytical-method-validationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agentlas-ai/agentlas-desktopWrote 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/agentlas-ai/agentlas-desktop/analytical-method-validation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/agentlas-ai/agentlas-desktop/analytical-method-validation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/agentlas-ai/agentlas-desktop/analytical-method-validation/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/agentlas-ai/agentlas-desktop/analytical-method-validation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/agentlas-ai/agentlas-desktop/analytical-method-validation.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 | $0.00281 | $0.04376 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00112 | $0.01750 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00056 | $0.00875 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00438 |
Grade A, and why
analytical-method-validation 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to analytical-method-validation — 76 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 — 317 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Analytical Method Validation
When to use
Any time the question is whether an analytical procedure is fit for its intended purpose: designing a validation study, evaluating validation data, verifying a compendial procedure, transferring a procedure to another laboratory or instrument, or defending any of these in a report.
The two rules
1. Establish which framework governs before designing anything. The same assay validates differently under ICH Q2(R2), USP <1225>, ICH M10, CLSI EP, and ISO/IEC 17025. They differ in which characteristics are required, how the studies are laid out, and whether numeric acceptance criteria are supplied at all. Blending them produces a protocol that satisfies none of them.
2. State acceptance criteria before collecting data. Criteria chosen after seeing results are not acceptance criteria, and deciding them post hoc is a standing audit finding. ICH Q2(R2) deliberately supplies almost no numeric criteria — they have to come from the specification, the analytical target profile (ICH Q14 section 3), or development data. ICH M10 is the exception: it supplies explicit numbers, and they differ between chromatographic assays and ligand binding assays.
Scope
This skill plans studies, computes the statistics correctly, and structures the documentation. It does not decide that a procedure is validated, release a batch, accept or reject a run, close an investigation, or substitute for the analyst, the technical reviewer, the quality unit, or the regulator. Every script reports; none of them concludes.
Copyright boundary
ICH guidelines are published openly and licensed for reuse with acknowledgement, so their requirements are encoded directly in this skill. USP general chapters, CLSI EP documents, and ISO standards are copyrighted and paywalled. For those, this skill supplies the designation, scope, and where to obtain an authorised copy — never the text, never invented thresholds. Do not ask an agent to retrieve, transcribe, or reconstruct their content. If a number matters and it lives in a paywalled document, read it from the authorised copy.
What ships with it
16 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
- assets/validation-protocol-template.md 3.9 KB
- assets/validation-report-template.md 3.9 KB
- references/compendial-and-clsi.md 7.3 KB
- references/framework-selection.md 5.1 KB
- references/ich-m10-bioanalytical.md 7.2 KB
- references/ich-q2r2.md 13 KB
- references/source-ledger.md 7.7 KB
- references/statistics.md 11 KB
- scripts/_catalog.py 23 KB runs code
- scripts/_common.py 32 KB runs code
- scripts/check_accuracy_precision.py 14 KB runs code
- scripts/check_bioanalytical_run.py 11 KB runs code
- scripts/check_detection_limits.py 13 KB runs code
- scripts/check_response.py 9.6 KB runs code
- scripts/compare_methods.py 8.9 KB runs code
- scripts/plan_validation.py 15 KB runs code
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 · 317 lines · 281 tokens per session scan A 9f6db7bd7785
analytical-method-validation is a skill published in the GitHub repository agentlas-ai/agentlas-desktop (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 281 tokens to every session and 4,376 once invoked, about $0.0011 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to analytical-method-validation, differing in 76 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
analytical-method-validation
Plans, executes, and documents validation, verification, and transfer of analytical procedures under the governing framework - ICH Q2(R2) and Q14, USP / / , ICH M10 bioanalytical, CLSI EP, or ISO/IEC 17025. Use for HPLC, LC-MS/MS, GC, CE, ICP-MS, dissolution, qNMR, qPCR, NIR, and ligand binding or cell-based assays…
auditing-part11-trails
Generates and verifies 21 CFR Part 11-style audit trails — who/what/when, electronic signatures, and tamper-evidence — for OpenMed pipelines in GxP and clinical-trial (GCP) settings. Use when the user runs OpenMed in a regulated/validated environment and needs an attributable, time-stamped, tamper-evident record of…
invention-intake
Invention disclosure first-pass screen — novelty, obviousness, §101 eligibility, bar dates, detectability, and strategic value. Use when an invention disclosure comes in and needs triage on whether to pursue a prior-art search and patent counsel review, investigate further, or decline.
generating-synthetic-surrogates
Replace detected PHI with realistic, type-matched fake values in OpenMed so clinical notes stay readable and parseable instead of full of [REDACTED] markers. Use when the user wants surrogate names, MRNs, addresses, or dates rather than opaque masks, needs consistent fake identities across a document, must keep notes…
fda-database
Query openFDA API for drugs, devices, adverse events, recalls, regulatory submissions (510k, PMA), substance identification (UNII), for FDA regulatory data analysis and safety research.
adverse-event-narrative
Generates CIOMS I-compliant ICSR narratives from adverse event case data for FDA and EMA regulatory submission. Includes temporal analysis, MedDRA coding, causality assessment using WHO-UMC or Naranjo criteria, and multi-format output.