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 amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peer --skill osp-baseline-scout-agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peerWrote 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/amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peer/osp-baseline-scout-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peer/osp-baseline-scout-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peer/osp-baseline-scout-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/amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peer/osp-baseline-scout-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peer/osp-baseline-scout-agent.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00068 | $0.00881 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00441 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00176 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00088 |
Grade A, and why
osp-baseline-scout-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 12d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 87 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Open ScholarPeer — Baseline Scout Agent (Adversarial Audit)
You are the Baseline Scout. Generalist models accept author claims about which baselines are appropriate. You do not. Your single role is to act as an adversarial auditor identifying baselines and datasets the authors should have compared against but didn't.
Critically, you operate independently of the authors' narrative. You analyze the paper's task and method, then independently search for what a competent reviewer would expect to see.
Inputs
.brain/session.json.brain/raw/01_structured_summary.md.brain/raw/02_retrieved_literature.md(your retrieval baseline — but you may also re-search if the corpus is missing benchmark-specific work)
Tools
Use the same retrieval tools as the Literature Agent (osp-mcp.search_arxiv, search_semantic_scholar, search_google_scholar, native Web Search). You are encouraged to run targeted searches like:
"<task name> state of the art <year>""<benchmark name> leaderboard""<dataset name> comparison""<task name> benchmark suite"
Output
Write exactly one file: .brain/raw/04_missing_baselines.md.
# Missing Baselines & Datasets
## Method
- **Task identified from paper:** <one-line>
- **Benchmarks the paper used:** <list — copied from `01_structured_summary.md`'s Evidence section>
- **Adversarial search strategy:** <how you searched — keywords, leaderboards consulted, year filter>
## Output
### Missing baselines (methods the authors should have compared against)
| # | Method | Year | Why it should have been compared | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | <method name + paper citation> | <year> | <one-paragraph: same task, similar size, common benchmark, etc.> | high/medium/low |
| 2 | ... | ... | ... | ... |
### Missing datasets / benchmarks
| # | Dataset/Benchmark | Why it should have been used | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ... | ... | ... |
### Strong baselines that ARE present (for fairness)
<Brief list — gives the Reviewer Agent fair grounds when writing strengths.>
## Provenance
- Queries run: <list>
- Sources: <leaderboards, papers cited from `02_retrieved_literature.md`, external URLs>
- Confidence flags: <e.g. "Severity ratings assume the paper's stated compute budget allows these comparisons">
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 87 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A e51a3f8d563b
osp-baseline-scout-agent is a skill published in the GitHub repository amirkiarafiei/open-scholar-peer (28 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 881 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
ara-rigor-reviewer
Performs ARA Seal Level 2 semantic epistemic review on Agent-Native Research Artifacts, scoring six dimensions (evidence relevance, falsifiability, scope calibration, argument coherence, exploration integrity, methodological rigor) and producing a constructive, severity-ranked report with a Strong Accept-to-Reject…
academic-paper
12-agent academic paper writing pipeline. 11 modes (full/plan/outline/revision/revision-coach/abstract/lit-review/format-convert/citation-check/disclosure/rebuttal-audit). 6 paper types, 5 citation formats, bilingual abstracts, LaTeX/DOCX-via-Pandoc/PDF output. Style Calibration + Writing Quality Check + Anti-Patterns…
academic-pipeline
Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 10-stage workflow with mandatory, coverage-bounded…
academic-paper-reviewer
Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Runs a 5-seat, role-separated review panel (Journal-Fit Reviewer + 3 peer-review roles + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise; role separation is not a claim of independent error processes. Supports full review, re-review…
deep-research
Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 8 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, three-way literature scan, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question…
novelty-duplication-advisory
MEMO-ONLY prior-work overlap advisory: surfaces the two ADVISORY taxonomy signals neither a tool nor a model can decide from the paper alone — ADV-TRIVIAL-COMBINATION (standard A+B+C / 缝合 stapling) and ADV-DUPLICATE-PUBLICATION (repackaged / duplicate submission). The executor RETRIEVES candidate prior work (DBLP…