Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to AlessandroCaforio/Academic-Writing. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AlessandroCaforio/Academic-Writing/main/.claude/skills/check-methodology/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AlessandroCaforio/Academic-WritingWrote 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/alessandrocaforio/academic-writing/check-methodology)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alessandrocaforio/academic-writing/check-methodology"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alessandrocaforio/academic-writing/check-methodology/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/alessandrocaforio/academic-writing/check-methodology"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alessandrocaforio/academic-writing/check-methodology.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 | $0.00019 | $0.00251 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00125 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00050 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
check-methodology 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
Check Methodology
Run a deep causal inference review of the thesis methodology. The optional argument specifies a focus area.
Instructions
- Read the methodology chapter:
thesis/chapters/04_methodology.tex - Read the results chapter:
thesis/chapters/05_results.tex - Read the causal inference rule:
.claude/rules/causal-inference.md - Perform the full review per the causal-inference agent instructions
Focus Areas (optional argument)
identification— Focus on parallel trends, exogeneity, and threatstwfe— Focus on TWFE validity and heterogeneous treatment concernsshift-share— Focus on Bartik instrument conditions (BHJ, GPSS)inference— Focus on clustering, small-cluster corrections, spatial correlationrobustness— Focus on sensitivity checks and what additional checks are needed- No argument — Full comprehensive review
Output
Return the structured review report with priority recommendations.
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 · 31 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A ee98d1777445
check-methodology is a skill published in the GitHub repository AlessandroCaforio/Academic-Writing (17 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 251 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 skills, from other repositories
proofcheck
A systematic checker for mathematical proofs in statistics and machine-learning research papers.
theory-sharpen
A framework for testing whether a research paper’s theoretical results can be made stronger, such as by using fewer assumptions or proving faster rates. It also checks whether the theory matches the model, experiments, and existing research.
theory-simulation
Bridge between theoretical results and Monte Carlo simulation, built to top-stat-journal standards (AoS, JASA, JRSS-B, Biometrika, Bernoulli). Two modes: (1) DESIGN mode — for each theoretical claim, design new simulations that verify rates, coverage, stress-test assumptions, and reveal theory-improvement…
proof-repair
Generate self-consistent repair plans for mathematical proof issues found by /proofcheck, with literature-backed support. For each problematic assumption, model, proposition, or theorem, proposes fixes that preserve the full dependency chain and searches arXiv, Semantic Scholar, and Google Scholar for new references…
theory-design
Design a coherent theoretical framework for a new statistics / ML theory research topic, paper-type aware. Three modes — Theory paper (explain phenomena or provide new theoretical tools), Methodology paper (propose a new method with theoretical guarantees), Application paper (apply existing methods to scientific data…
proof-writer
A proof-writing aid for mathematical results in machine learning and artificial intelligence theory. It checks whether the stated assumptions actually support each proof step.