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 emaballarin/ccplugins --skill literature-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/emaballarin/ccpluginsWrote 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/emaballarin/ccplugins/literature-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/emaballarin/ccplugins/literature-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/emaballarin/ccplugins/literature-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00121 | $0.04548 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00060 | $0.02274 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00910 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00455 |
Grade A, and why
literature-review 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 4d 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 — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Literature review
A literature question has two halves: finding the papers a domain expert would point to, and turning them into something more useful than a reading list — a synthesis that says what's established, what's contested, what's new, and where the holes are. Both halves can fail quietly and look like competent output until someone checks. This covers all of STEM — a machine-learning benchmark result, a distributed-systems protocol, a materials-synthesis route, and a clinical trial are all in scope, and the same discipline applies to each: retrieve before you write, ground every claim in a real record, never invent an identifier.
Read the request for what it's actually asking
"What's the paper for X" wants one or two specific citations; "what's the evidence on X" wants a synthesis; "compare A and B" wants a comparison, not two adjacent summaries; "where are the gaps" wants the gaps, with the survey as supporting material. A two-word lay query wants you to choose the scope a domain expert would default to and say so up front — "I'll read this as the transformer architecture paper, not the earlier attention mechanism it builds on" or "I'll take this as human RCT evidence; the animal literature is separate." Ask a clarifier only when the answer would genuinely change what you do.
Load the helpers
kernel.py in this skill's directory ships the retrieval and BibTeX helpers. There is no auto-injection: import the file by its path before using it, and the module has zero import-time side effects, so importing it costs nothing. From a Bash python invocation (substitute the absolute path to this skill's kernel.py):
python - <<'PY'
import importlib.util, json
spec = importlib.util.spec_from_file_location("litrev_kernel", "/ABSOLUTE/PATH/TO/skills/literature-review/kernel.py")
lr = importlib.util.module_from_spec(spec); spec.loader.exec_module(lr)
print(json.dumps(lr.verify_dois(["10.1145/3292500.3330701"]), indent=2))
PY
The public helpers are verify_dois, crossref_lookup, search_openalex, expand_citations, extract_dois, style_pass, resolve_published / resolve_published_all, dedupe_records, to_bibtex, and bibtex_tidy. Each call is a short python run that imports the module and prints JSON you read back. Two optional env vars tune the polite path: LITREVIEW_CONTACT_EMAIL (a real address you own; it enters the Crossref/doi.org polite pool, and until it is set no mailto: is sent and those requests are plain anonymous ones) and OPENALEX_API_KEY (raises OpenAlex's per-request budget; without it, OpenAlex calls go out unauthenticated and still work, subject to shared rate limits).
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 4d ago Changed d14f4742c033
- 8d ago First seen · 122 lines · 121 tokens per session scan A 4c052b8eeca9
literature-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository emaballarin/ccplugins (3 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 121 tokens to every session and 4,548 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
cran-extrachecks
Prepare R packages for CRAN submission by checking for common ad-hoc requirements not caught by devtools::check(). Use when: (1) Preparing a package for first CRAN release, (2) Preparing a package update for CRAN resubmission, (3) Reviewing a package to ensure CRAN compliance, (4) Responding to CRAN reviewer feedback.…
mirai
Help users write correct R code for async, parallel, and distributed computing using mirai. Use when users need to run R code asynchronously or in parallel, write mirai code with correct dependency passing, set up parallel workers, convert from future or parallel, use miraimap, integrate with Shiny or promises, or…
paper-opportunity-radar
Run a cumulative daily or retrospective sweep of research papers on a chosen topic, audit their claims, methods, integrity signals, and independent support, then identify overlooked but feasible project or business opportunities in a detailed source-grounded report. Use when asked to monitor papers every day, mine…
aql-authoring
This skill should be used when the user asks to "write an AQL query", "optimize an AQL query", "review AQL", or "query openEHR data" — the multi-step authoring/optimization workflow for AQL (Archetype Query Language) over openEHR clinical data. For a one-off explanation of an existing query or a single AQL…
diversity-and-population-management
When the user wants to diagnose or prevent premature convergence in population-based metaheuristics by measuring and managing diversity: entropy and distance-based diversity measures, fitness sharing, crowding, niching, duplicate elimination, restart policies, and adaptive parameter control driven by diversity…
algorithm-benchmarking-statistics
When the user wants to compare optimization algorithms with a sound empirical protocol — instance and seed design, time limits, best/mean/gap reporting, nonparametric hypothesis tests, effect sizes, and the plots that summarize them. Also use when the user mentions "compare algorithms," "statistical test," "Wilcoxon,"…