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 equinor/neqsim --skill paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/equinor/neqsimWrote 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/equinor/neqsim/paperlab_neqsim_api_claim_verification)<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.
<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>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00055 | $0.00526 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00263 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00105 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00053 |
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.
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_writingfor claim markers,neqsim-api-patternsfor current modeling patterns,neqsim-notebook-patternsfor devtools setup,neqsim-java8-rulesfor 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
- Extract Java and Python code blocks, inline API names, notebook imports, and class references from chapter text.
- Search
src/main/java/neqsim/for each class and method. - Read constructors and overloads before judging snippet correctness.
- Check for required NeqSim setup patterns: mixing rule,
createDatabase(true)when needed, flash calculation, andinitProperties()before transport property reads. - For documentation examples, identify or propose a JUnit or notebook test.
- 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.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 70 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 073c1fe4d441
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.
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.
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…
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".
workflows:review
Run multi-agent econometric review on estimation code, identification arguments, and research artifacts.
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.
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.