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 Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills --skill claim-source-verificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Boom5426/Nature-Paper-SkillsWrote 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/boom5426/nature-paper-skills/claim-source-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/boom5426/nature-paper-skills/claim-source-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/boom5426/nature-paper-skills/claim-source-verification/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/boom5426/nature-paper-skills/claim-source-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/boom5426/nature-paper-skills/claim-source-verification.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 76 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00082 | $0.02614 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.01046 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00523 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00261 |
Grade A, and why
claim-source-verification 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 26d 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 — 230 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Claim-Source Verification
Overview
A citation can be perfectly real, perfectly formatted, and still wrong, because the paper it points to does not say what the sentence claims it says. That is the failure this skill exists to catch, and it is the dominant one.
The calibration comes from a real Review manuscript. Seven research agents proposed 139 sources to resolve 44 open factual questions. An independent skeptic then re-checked every one. It rejected 55.
| Rejection class | Count |
|---|---|
does_not_support_claim |
29 |
metadata_wrong |
12 |
wrong_site_or_population |
6 |
not_primary_but_required_to_be |
5 |
paywalled_unverifiable |
3 |
None was fabricated. Every rejected source was a real, findable paper with a real DOI. An existence check would have passed all 139. A metadata check would have caught 12. The largest class, more than half of all rejections, is invisible to both: a genuine paper made to carry a conclusion it does not reach.
So the operating rule is: a source's existence is not evidence that it supports the claim, and a clean bibliography audit is not evidence of anything at all.
When To Use
Use this skill when:
- an agent, a collaborator, or a literature-search tool has proposed references and nothing has adversarially checked them yet
- a manuscript makes quantitative claims (limits, thresholds, error rates, standard clauses, benchmark numbers) that trace to cited sources
- open factual or sourcing markers are being closed out in batch
- a Review or survey is being sourced, where most claims are about other people's measurements rather than the author's own
Do not use this skill for:
- duplicate BibTeX keys, DOI syntax, missing fields, placeholder entries. That is
citation-verifier, and it runs before this, not instead of it. - discovering literature from scratch. That is
academic-researcher, installed with--set all. This skill checks what such a pass produces. - deciding whether a claim is interesting. That is
manuscript-optimizer.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 26d ago Changed cd7890fec175
- 1mo ago First seen · 230 lines · 82 tokens per session scan A 0d594cb6dd5e
claim-source-verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills (633 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 82 tokens to every session and 2,614 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
inno-paper-writing
Creates formal academic research papers following IEEE/ACM formatting standards with proper structure, citations, and scholarly writing style.
ml-paper-writing
Write publication-ready ML/AI papers for NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, COLM. Use when drafting papers from research repos, structuring arguments, verifying citations, or preparing camera-ready submissions. Includes LaTeX templates, reviewer guidelines, and citation verification workflows.
review-response
Systematic review response workflow from comment analysis to professional rebuttal writing. Use when the user asks to "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "draft review response", or "analyze review comments". Improves paper acceptance rates.
paper2poster-poster
Use when the user wants to turn an academic paper into a conference poster, poster outline, poster copy deck, poster layout brief, poster.yaml style draft, or Paper2Poster-ready generation package. Trigger for paper-to-poster requests involving PDF papers, arXiv links, manuscripts, PPTX posters, conference…
anti-defensive-writing-en
Stops defensive writing across the entire paper lifecycle — writing, revising, cutting, and organizing experiments. Treats the paper as a press conference, not a project summary, lab log, or self-audit: identify the single most publishable strength of the work and build the most favorable, complete, and persuasive…
anti-defensive-writing
A Chinese-language writing guide for presenting a research paper around its strongest supported contribution. It treats the paper as a focused academic presentation rather than a project diary or complete lab record.