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 skills/airas-org/airas/run-experimentsnpx skills add airas-org/airas --skill run-experimentsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/airas-org/airasWrote 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/airas-org/airas/run-experiments)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/airas-org/airas/run-experiments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/airas-org/airas/run-experiments.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 | $0.00050 | $0.00783 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00392 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
run-experiments 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 yesterday.
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
Run the experiments
Needs a clone with committed experiment code that passes local sanity
(built to the write-experiment-code contract, uv.lock committed). Every run you
dispatch must already be declared in .research/record.json in a
commit the run will execute — results for an undeclared run_id fail
verification, and a claim is verified once every run under it has results — but declare before you dispatch: the record cannot yet tell a preregistered claim from a post-hoc one. Declare late additions with append_to_record
(it commits the append itself) and push before dispatching.
-
Resolve the platform. It should already be settled — the code was written against its architecture and environment constraints. Read its reference in full; it is the procedure for steps 2-3. This file states only what every platform must deliver, so a platform is added by adding a reference that answers the same three questions — how the contract CLI is launched, how the run's identifier and commit are obtained, and how its outputs reach the repository.
Platform Reference GitHub Actions _shared/references/github-actions.mdSeyval _shared/references/seyval.md -
Run it by the reference's procedure, then fix, commit on top and re-run as needed. However the run starts, record two things when it ends: the platform's run identifier and the commit hash it executed. Step 3 cannot be done without them.
-
Make the run produce what verification reads. The contract CLI (
src.main) writes onlyeval_inputs/— the raw predictions. The numbers the record is checked against live inmetrics.json, which the evaluation step writes, and provenance byte-compares that file against the platform's stored copy. A run that stops aftersrc.maintherefore succeeds and still fails verification, with nothing in the error pointing at the cause.So a run must carry the chain through to the end:
src.main && make evaluate RUN_ID=<run_id> && src.evaluateOn a platform that gives each run a fresh working directory, a later run cannot see an earlier one's output, so either chain the three in one dispatch or stage the earlier runs into it (Seyval:
inputs_from_runs). Keepeval_inputs/in the results too: it is what the metrics can be re-derived from, and the record anchors it by hash. -
Bring the results back under
.research/results/, committed, with.research/results/.provenance.jsondeclaring per results directory theexecution_idandcommit_hashfrom step 2.verify_paper_valuespins its provenance cross-check to that file and treats a missing declaration as a mismatch, so results that arrive any other way fail verification. If the same experiment ran more than once, declare the run that should be reported and tell the user the others exist (the selection is reviewable at verification).
Output: committed results under .research/results/ — eval_inputs/,
metrics.json and the evaluation report — with their provenance manifest.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 66 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A d7a6bd2d307c
run-experiments is a skill published in the GitHub repository airas-org/airas (32 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 783 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
research-proof
Turn vague research ideas, math-heavy claims, AI-lab style agent loops, benchmark claims, causal claims, prototype-readiness claims, design research, prompt-injection-sensitive evidence reviews, and medical-research style questions into falsifiable proof programs with fixed Claim/Verifier/Current…
proof-checker
Rigorous mathematical proof verification and fixing workflow. Reads a LaTeX proof, identifies gaps via cross-model review (external reviewer backend, ultra reasoning), fixes each gap with full derivations, re-reviews, and generates an audit report. Use when user says "检查证明", "verify proof", "proof check", "审证明"…
auto-paper-improvement-loop
Autonomously improve a generated paper via GPT-5.6-Sol xhigh review → implement fixes → recompile, for 2 rounds. Use when user says "改论文", "improve paper", "论文润色循环", "auto improve", or wants to iteratively polish a generated paper.
paper-write
Draft LaTeX paper section by section from an outline. Use when user says "写论文", "write paper", "draft LaTeX", "开始写", or wants to generate LaTeX content from a paper plan.
research-lit
Search and analyze research papers, find related work, summarize key ideas. Use when user says "find papers", "related work", "literature review", "what does this paper say", or needs to understand academic papers.
paper-illustration
Generate publication-quality AI illustrations for academic papers using Gemini image generation. Creates architecture diagrams, method illustrations with Claude-supervised iterative refinement loop. Use when user says "生成图表", "画架构图", "AI绘图", "paper illustration", "generate diagram", or needs visual figures for papers.