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 chgagne/claude-skills-research --skill reviewing-paper-sourcesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/chgagne/claude-skills-researchWrote 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/chgagne/claude-skills-research/reviewing-paper-sources)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/chgagne/claude-skills-research/reviewing-paper-sources"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/chgagne/claude-skills-research/reviewing-paper-sources/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/chgagne/claude-skills-research/reviewing-paper-sources"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/chgagne/claude-skills-research/reviewing-paper-sources.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 | $0.00119 | $0.06285 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00060 | $0.03143 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.01257 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00628 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-paper-sources scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 7d 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
(`curl -sL arxiv.org/e-print/<id> | tar -xz`, or CVF/ACL Anthology for camera-readies), and How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 297 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing Paper Sources
Overview
A paper review is an evidence-gathering exercise, not a reading exercise. The findings that change a paper come from things you compute or verify, not from things you notice while reading: recomputing the headline statistic, checking every reference against its publisher record, compiling the sources yourself, rendering the figures at print size.
Core principle: never trust an artifact you did not produce. The committed PDF is stale until proven current. A reference is wrong until checked against a primary source. A reported rate means nothing until you have its sample size.
Mode: establish this first
| Mode A — internal | Mode B — external | |
|---|---|---|
| Situation | Advisor/self-review of your own group's draft | Referee report for a venue |
| Register | Blunt, shared stake in the outcome | Neutral, addressed to authors + chair |
| Proposes fixes | Yes, including edits to the sources | No — diagnose only, never rewrite the authors' text |
| Artifacts | Review .md + .pdf, *-annotated.tex, refs-corrected.bib |
Review .md + .pdf only |
| Scores/verdict | Yes (both modes) | Yes |
If it is ambiguous, ask. "My student's paper" ⇒ Mode A. "I'm reviewing for X" ⇒ Mode B.
Then establish what you were given. With LaTeX sources, follow the workflow below as
written. With only a PDF — the usual case for refereeing — the compile step, the .bbl
cross-check and the source-based tools are all unavailable, and two failure modes appear that
do not exist otherwise. Build the pseudo-source first and read
reference/pdf-only-review.md:
python3 assets/run-pdfshim.py paper.pdf --out review-assets/
Also establish where in its lifecycle the paper is, because it changes what the review is for: pre-submission (triage by what fits the deadline), already submitted (target what reviewers will attack, and prepare answers), or post-rejection (framing and structural weaknesses).
An unfinished draft is a fourth case, and it needs the findings split three ways: content, not-yet-written, and container. Content is the only one that bears on the judgement — claims that are written and wrong, framing the paper's own data refutes, work missing from the argument. Container is everything that makes the artifact submittable rather than good, and it belongs in its own late section with the severity tag saying so ("Blocks submission; not a judgement on the work") rather than sitting at the top of the concerns list outranking the science. The temptation runs the other way, because container defects are the easiest to find and the easiest to state with certainty — which is exactly why they crowd out the findings that took real work to establish.
What ships with it
13 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.
- assets/changes-preamble.tex 1.2 KB
- assets/pdfshim/__init__.py 1004 B runs code
- assets/pdfshim/refs.py 13 KB runs code
- assets/pdfshim/structure.py 5.5 KB runs code
- assets/pdfshim/text.py 3.5 KB runs code
- assets/run-pdfshim.py 3.6 KB runs code
- assets/tests/__init__.py 0 B runs code
- assets/tests/test_pdfshim.py 7.9 KB runs code
- reference/annotating-with-changes.md 6.8 KB
- reference/bibliography-audit.md 6.3 KB
- reference/claim-audit.md 16 KB
- reference/pdf-only-review.md 9.9 KB
- reference/review-template.md 9.7 KB
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.
- 7d ago Changed · +18 lines 8b2b26e7dc23
- 12d ago First seen · 279 lines · 119 tokens per session scan A 865a32728414
reviewing-paper-sources is a skill published in the GitHub repository chgagne/claude-skills-research (4 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 119 tokens to every session and 6,285 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
literaturverzeichnispruefung
Verify academic references and bibliographies for citation errors and AI hallucinations using live database APIs (OpenAlex, OpenAIRE, K10plus, lobid, DNB, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, ZBW EconBiz, Open Library, arXiv, Library of Congress, GESIS). Trigger whenever a user wants to check, verify, or validate ANY…
secure-auth
Secure authentication patterns (OWASP, NIST). Use for login, registration, password reset, sessions, JWT, OAuth, MFA, passkeys.
academic-writing
Scholarly writing and research compliance. Use for CRediT, preregistration, Plan S, Nelson Memo, preprints, ORCID, LLM disclosure.
page-monitoring
Web page change detection, availability tracking, and RSS feed generation. Use to monitor changes, downtime, or make a feed.
web-archiving
Web archiving and retrieval via Wayback Machine and Archive.today. Use to preserve content, reach dead pages, or save evidence.
accessibility-compliance
Web accessibility patterns for news and academic sites. Use for WCAG audits, alt text, accessible data viz, and assistive tech.