Claude Scholar is a semi-automated research assistant for academic research and software development, supporting literature review, coding, experiments, reporting, writing, and project knowledge management. Computer science and AI researchers use it across the research workflow with several coding-agent platforms; the catalogue contains its skills, commands, agents, hooks, plugin, and instruction.
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 Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar --skill doc-coauthoringgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholarWrote 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/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/doc-coauthoring)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/doc-coauthoring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/doc-coauthoring/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/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/doc-coauthoring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/doc-coauthoring.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 | $0.00047 | $0.03386 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01693 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00677 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00339 |
Grade A, and why
doc-coauthoring 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 12d 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to doc-coauthoring — 17 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 391 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Doc Co-Authoring Workflow
This skill provides a structured workflow for guiding users through collaborative document creation. Act as an active guide, walking users through three stages: Context Gathering, Refinement & Structure, and Reader Testing.
Runtime contract
Use references/RUNTIME-MATRIX.md to decide what is available in the current environment before offering connectors, artifacts, or reader-test subagents.
If no artifact-like surface is available, default to a normal markdown file in a user-specified path or an explicitly named working file. Do not assume artifacts are available.
When to Offer This Workflow
Trigger conditions:
- User mentions writing documentation: "write a doc", "draft a proposal", "create a spec", "write up"
- User mentions specific doc types: "PRD", "design doc", "decision doc", "RFC"
- User seems to be starting a substantial writing task
Initial offer: Offer the user a structured workflow for co-authoring the document. Explain the three stages:
- Context Gathering: User provides all relevant context while Claude asks clarifying questions
- Refinement & Structure: Iteratively build each section through brainstorming and editing
- Reader Testing: Test the doc with a fresh Claude (no context) to catch blind spots before others read it
Explain that this approach helps ensure the doc works well when others read it (including when they paste it into Claude). Ask if they want to try this workflow or prefer to work freeform.
If user declines, work freeform. If user accepts, proceed to Stage 1.
Stage 1: Context Gathering
Goal: Close the gap between what the user knows and what Claude knows, enabling smart guidance later.
Initial Questions
Start by asking the user for meta-context about the document:
- What type of document is this? (e.g., technical spec, decision doc, proposal)
- Who's the primary audience?
- What's the desired impact when someone reads this?
- Is there a template or specific format to follow?
- Any other constraints or context to know?
What ships with it
3 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.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 391 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 2d37d2db3439
doc-coauthoring is a skill published in the GitHub repository Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar (5,431 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 3,386 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to doc-coauthoring, differing in 17 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
stss
Reduce defensive disclaimers, stacked hedging, and self-protective narration in proposals and decision-facing writing. Use when the user asks to rewrite or audit a proposal, plan, research contribution, executive summary, or similar text for directness. Do not use for ordinary code work or unrelated prose.
research
Performs deep research on a topic via deepresearch. Simulates a multi-step research process and returns a comprehensive research result as a string.
intuitive-preflight
Turn a vague task, plan, issue, or "LGTM/go ahead" request into an approval-ready preflight contract before implementation starts. Use when the user wants prompt preflight, clearer scope, non-goals, context package, acceptance criteria, definition of done, verification, stop gates, the exact execution command, or…
do-it-core
Use when repository work needs a shared baseline for intent, facts, causal changes, and honest evidence.
do-it-handbook
Use when repeated rediscovery of stable project knowledge makes a small shared handbook useful.
do-it-context
Use when project terms, relationships, or invariants drift between user language, docs, and implementation.