Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to FilippoScaramuzza/agentic-reviewer. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FilippoScaramuzza/agentic-reviewer/main/.cursor/skills/review-ethics/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/FilippoScaramuzza/agentic-reviewerWrote 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/filipposcaramuzza/agentic-reviewer/review-ethics)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/filipposcaramuzza/agentic-reviewer/review-ethics"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/filipposcaramuzza/agentic-reviewer/review-ethics/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/filipposcaramuzza/agentic-reviewer/review-ethics"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/filipposcaramuzza/agentic-reviewer/review-ethics.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 | $0.00043 | $0.00727 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00364 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00145 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
review-ethics 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 10d 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 — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Ethics
Check ethical compliance of an academic paper, identifying any issues that could lead to rejection.
Prerequisites
Before starting, read:
- The paper file
context/<journal-slug>/scope-and-criteria.md(journal-specific ethics requirements)
Review Checklist
IRB/Ethics Board Approval
- Is institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee approval documented?
- Is the approval number or reference provided?
- Does the approval cover the specific study conducted?
- For studies not requiring IRB, is this justified?
Informed Consent
- Is informed consent documented for human subjects research?
- Is the consent process described (written, verbal, etc.)?
- Are consent forms available if required?
- For vulnerable populations, are additional protections described?
Animal Research Ethics
- For animal studies, is ethical approval documented?
- Are animal welfare guidelines followed (ARRIVE guidelines, etc.)?
- Is the 3R principle (Replace, Reduce, Refine) addressed?
- Are euthanasia methods described and humane?
- Mark as N/A if the paper does not involve animal research
Conflicts of Interest
- Is a conflicts of interest statement present?
- Are all potential COIs disclosed (financial, personal, professional)?
- Are there undisclosed COIs implied by author affiliations or funding?
- Is the funding source declared?
Data Availability & Sharing
- Is a data availability statement included?
- Are data deposited in a public repository (with DOI/accession number)?
- If data cannot be shared, are restrictions justified?
- Is analysis code available?
Authorship Ethics
- Does the author list seem appropriate for the contribution?
- Are author contributions described (CRediT taxonomy)?
- Is there evidence of honorary/gift authorship?
- Is corresponding author clearly designated?
Privacy & Anonymization
- Are participants properly anonymized?
- Is sensitive data protected (no identifiable information)?
- Are there privacy risks in data sharing?
- Is GDPR or relevant data protection legislation addressed?
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 81 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 838f5b8c3869
review-ethics is a skill published in the GitHub repository FilippoScaramuzza/agentic-reviewer (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 727 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
search-math-results
Find program-conditioned math results, constructions, examples, counterexamples, analogies, and background references. Use when the current active program needs repair, mutation, analogy, a program shift, or carefully gated obstruction search.
check-referenced-statements
Validate externally referenced theorems by querying arXiv theorem search first and Codex's built-in web search second. Use when a markdown proof cites statements from external papers.
verify-sequential-statements
Verify a markdown proof in the order it is written. Use when the task is to check local correctness, theorem applicability, and reasoning gaps statement by statement through a paper-style proof.
construct-counterexamples
Construct candidate counterexamples to test a proposed conjecture, lemma, or intermediate claim by keeping the assumptions true while making the claimed conclusion fail. Use when a proposed conjecture/claim feels fragile or unproved, or when you are stuck in reasoning and want to see where the assumptions take effect…
construct-toy-examples
Generate and analyze simpler examples that satisfy both the assumptions and the conclusion of a theorem statement or subgoal. Use when you are stuck in reasoning and need simpler examples to regain traction, or when you want to see where the assumptions take effect and gain intuition.
obtain-immediate-conclusions
Derive immediate mathematical consequences from a theorem statement or subgoal. Use when starting a new problem, branch, or subgoal, or when cheap progress or a cleaner reformulation is needed before deeper proof search.