Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add Axect/magi-researchers/plugin install magi-researchersWrote 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/axect/magi-researchers/research-brainstorm)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/axect/magi-researchers/research-brainstorm"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/axect/magi-researchers/research-brainstorm/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/axect/magi-researchers/research-brainstorm"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/axect/magi-researchers/research-brainstorm.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 | $0.00000 | $0.16493 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.08247 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.03299 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.01649 |
Grade A, and why
research-brainstorm 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 11d 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 — 836 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Research Brainstorm Skill
Description
Generates and cross-validates research ideas using Gemini and Codex in parallel, then synthesizes results with Claude.
Usage
/research-brainstorm "research topic" [--domain physics|ai_ml|statistics|mathematics|paper] [--weights '{"novelty":0.4,...}'|adaptive] [--depth low|medium|high|max|auto] [--personas N] [--claude-only] [--substitute "Gemini -> Opus"]
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS— The research topic and optional flags:--domain— Research domain (physics, ai_ml, statistics, mathematics, paper). Auto-inferred if omitted.--weights— Scoring mode for finding ranking:- Omitted (default — holistic mode): Claude ranks findings based on its own expert judgment, with detailed rationale for each ranking position. No numeric dimension weights are used.
- JSON object (e.g.,
'{"novelty":0.4,"feasibility":0.2,"impact":0.2,"rigor":0.1,"scalability":0.1}'): Weighted scoring — dimensionsnovelty,feasibility,impact,rigor,scalabilitywith values summing to 1.0. adaptive: Claude analyzes the prompt, adjusts domain defaults, and asks for user confirmation before scoring (see Step 0c).
--depth— Controls review depth (default:medium):low— Skip cross-review, go directly to synthesismedium— Standard one-shot cross-review (current behavior)high— Cross-review + evidence anchoring + adversarial debate roundmax— Hierarchical MAGI-in-MAGI: N persona subagents run parallel mini-MAGI pipelines, then meta-review + evidence anchoring + adversarial debate across all perspectivesauto— Adaptive depth: starts as medium, auto-escalates to high or deep based on cross-review disagreement signals (see T12)
--personas N|auto— Number of domain-specialist subagents for--depth max(default:auto, range: 2-4). Whenauto, Claude analyzes the topic to determine the optimal persona count. Ignored for other depth levels.--claude-only— Replace all Gemini/Codex MCP calls with Claude Agent subagents. Use when external model endpoints are unavailable or for a Claude-only workflow. Two subagents with distinct cognitive styles (Creative-Divergent and Analytical-Convergent) ensure perspective diversity.--substitute "Agent -> Opus"— Replace a specific MAGI agent with a Claude (Opus) subagent. Accepted forms:"Gemini -> Opus","Codex -> Opus". Can be specified multiple times. Use when a specific model hits rate limits but other models are still available. The substituted agent uses the same cognitive style mapping as--claude-onlymode. If both agents are substituted, functionally equivalent to--claude-only. Mutually exclusive with--claude-only(if both provided,--claude-onlytakes precedence).
What ships with it
5 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.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 836 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 34850e9200e7
research-brainstorm is a skill published in the GitHub repository Axect/magi-researchers (13 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 16,493 tokens. 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
gemini-code-exec
Run Python code in Gemini's sandboxed execution environment to verify math, test regex patterns, simulate logic, or validate algorithms without local execution. Use when you need computational verification without side effects.
proof-checker
A mathematical proof review and repair workflow for LaTeX documents. It checks whether a proof has valid reasoning, addresses identified gaps, reviews the fixes, and produces an audit report.
paper-illustration
A workflow for generating academic illustrations, such as architecture diagrams and method visuals, with image generation and repeated review. Claude plans and checks the figure during the process.
paper-illustration-image2
Generate publication-quality academic illustrations through a local Codex app-server bridge that uses Codex native image generation. This is a separate experimental alternative to paper-illustration, intended for Claude Code users who want a GPT-image-style renderer without modifying the original skill.
experiment-audit
A review step that checks whether an experiment's reported results are supported by real data and a sufficiently broad test.
result-to-claim
Use when experiments complete to judge what claims the results support, what they don't, and what evidence is still missing. Codex MCP evaluates results against intended claims and routes to next action (pivot, supplement, or confirm). Use after experiments finish — before writing the paper or running ablations.