paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verification

paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verification is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from equinor/neqsim. It costs 55 tokens per session (526 once invoked), scanned A, original, Apache-2.0.

A verification workflow for checking NeqSim class names, methods, constructors, code examples, units, and setup instructions against source code, tests, and notebooks.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review Java and Python snippets in book chapters and label references as valid, deprecated, incorrect, missing, or needing a runnable test.
Why use it?
It finds API examples that use missing methods, wrong arguments, deprecated patterns, or uncertain unit conventions.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit Use it to review Java and Python snippets in book chapters and label references as valid, deprecated, incorrect, missing, or needing a runnable test.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/equinor/neqsim/paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verification
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add equinor/neqsim --skill paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verification
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/equinor/neqsim

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verification

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/equinor/neqsim/paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verification/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/equinor/neqsim/paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verification)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/equinor/neqsim/paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/equinor/neqsim/paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_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.

agentmods 80×15 button for paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verification

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/equinor/neqsim/paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/equinor/neqsim/paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verification.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 55 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 526 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00055 $0.00526
Opus 5 $0.00028 $0.00263
Sonnet 5 $0.00011 $0.00105
Haiku 4.5 $0.00006 $0.00053

Measured 5d ago against content hash 073c1fe4d441, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-09, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_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 5d 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.

.github/skills/paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verification/SKILL.md · 70 lines

What it actually says

PaperLab NeqSim API Claim Verification

When to Use

USE WHEN: a chapter mentions NeqSim classes, methods, constructors, units, notebook examples, or API workflows.

Pair with:

  • neqsim_in_writing for claim markers,
  • neqsim-api-patterns for current modeling patterns,
  • neqsim-notebook-patterns for devtools setup,
  • neqsim-java8-rules for Java snippet compatibility.

Verification Categories

Category Meaning
valid source confirms class/method/signature
deprecated API exists but should be avoided
wrong-signature class/method exists but arguments are wrong
missing-class referenced class does not exist
missing-method class exists but method does not
unit-risk method exists but unit convention is unclear or wrong
needs-test documentation example lacks runnable verification

Workflow

  1. Extract Java and Python code blocks, inline API names, notebook imports, and class references from chapter text.
  2. Search src/main/java/neqsim/ for each class and method.
  3. Read constructors and overloads before judging snippet correctness.
  4. Check for required NeqSim setup patterns: mixing rule, createDatabase(true) when needed, flash calculation, and initProperties() before transport property reads.
  5. For documentation examples, identify or propose a JUnit or notebook test.
  6. Emit minimal fixes with source-backed confidence.

Output Schema

{
  "chapter": "ch24_computational_tools_neqsim",
  "references": [
    {
      "symbol": "Cooler",
      "kind": "class",
      "status": "valid",
      "source": "src/main/java/neqsim/process/equipment/heatexchanger/Cooler.java",
      "evidence": "constructor Cooler(String, StreamInterface)",
      "recommendation": "none"
    }
  ]
}

Safety Rules

  • Do not assume API patterns; verify actual source.
  • All Java examples must remain Java 8 compatible.
  • Do not rewrite notebook setup to import installed stale NeqSim when devtools setup is required.
Changes

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.

  1. 5d ago First seen · 70 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 073c1fe4d441

Subscribe to this mod's changes

paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository equinor/neqsim (151 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 526 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 2026-09-03.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

review-paper-code

Review research code for reproducibility and quality, extract the paper's main empirical claims, compare paper to code, and write a constructive markdown report. Designed for social science / economics projects with LaTeX papers and Stata, R, or Python code.

claesbackman/AI-research-feedback · 55 tokens

review-r

Read-only R code review protocol for .R scripts. Checks code quality, reproducibility, domain correctness, tidyverse idioms, and professional standards; produces a report without editing. Use when user says "review this R script", "check the R code", "audit the analysis code", "code review on the R", or when an R file…

pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow · 102 tokens

aris-experiment-bridge

Code review focused on experiment integrity, not general code quality. Check reproducibility, config-driven design, baseline fairness, seed handling. Triggers: "review experiment code", "check implementation", "bridge review", "is this code reproducible", "audit experiment implementation".

appleweiping/WEIPING_WIKI · 58 tokens

workflows:review

Run multi-agent econometric review on estimation code, identification arguments, and research artifacts.

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills · 21 tokens

referee2

Systematic audit and review by Referee 2. Two modes — "deck" reviews slide presentations for rhetoric, visual quality, and compile cleanliness; "code" performs cross-language replication and econometric audit of empirical pipelines. Use when reviewing slides, auditing code, or verifying replication.

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills · 61 tokens

review-asi-contributions

Independently evaluate whether a SlopDotCash/asi contribution delivers a reproducible hill climb, measured research advancement or refutation, or an actual reproduced bug fix. Reject generic improvements, cleanup, and trivial work.

SlopDotCash/slopdotcash · 50 tokens