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 paper-self-reviewgit 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/paper-self-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/paper-self-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/paper-self-review/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/paper-self-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/galaxy-dawn/claude-scholar/paper-self-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
- 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 | $0.00068 | $0.01170 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00585 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00234 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00117 |
Grade A, and why
paper-self-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 8d 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 — 162 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Paper Self-Review
A systematic paper quality checking tool that helps researchers conduct comprehensive self-review before submission.
Core Features
1. Structure Review
Check whether all sections of the paper are complete and conform to academic standards:
- Does the Abstract include problem, method, results, and contributions?
- Does the Introduction clearly articulate research motivation and background?
- Is the Method detailed enough to be reproducible?
- Do the Results sufficiently support the conclusions?
- Does the Discussion address limitations and future work?
2. Logic Consistency Check
Verify the logical coherence of the paper:
- Do research questions match the methodology?
- Does the experimental design support the research hypotheses?
- Are result interpretations reasonable?
- Are conclusions supported by evidence?
3. Citation Completeness
Check the completeness and accuracy of citations:
- Are all citations present in the references?
- Is the reference format consistent?
- Are key related works cited?
- Do citations accurately reflect the original content?
4. Research Claim Audit
Check whether the paper's claims are supported by the available evidence:
- Are the main claims supported by results, citations, or analysis artifacts?
- Are speculative observations clearly marked as tentative?
- Does the paper avoid stronger wording than the evidence allows?
- Are negative results, limitations, and missing baselines presented honestly?
- Do conclusions stay inside the tested scope?
This audit does not replace results-analysis for statistics or citation-verification for bibliographic verification. It checks whether paper claims correctly use the available evidence.
5. Figure/Table Quality
Evaluate the quality and effectiveness of figures and tables:
- Do all figures/tables have clear titles and captions?
- Do figures/tables support the text narrative?
- Are figures/tables clear and readable?
- Do formats comply with journal/conference requirements?
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 162 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A e9c0040db739
paper-self-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar (5,431 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 1,170 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
research-workflow
This skill guides materials engineering researchers through four structured stages — from a raw idea to a fully planned experiment — with human-in-the-loop confirmation at each critical checkpoint.
paper-select-journal
A workflow for choosing suitable SCI journals for a scientific manuscript. It reviews the paper, filters possible journals using impact-factor data, and checks journal scope and recent publications.
nsfc-budget
A tool that creates an editable LaTeX budget justification and renders it as a PDF for an NSFC research-funding application. NSFC is China’s National Natural Science Foundation, and a budget justification explains why proposed costs are needed.
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.
aaai-experiments
Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.
acl-experiments
Use when designing or auditing experiments for an ACL paper, covering tuned LLM baselines, multi-dataset and multilingual evaluation, statistical significance and variance, human evaluation with agreement reporting, contamination and prompt-sensitivity controls, ablations, and error-analysis expectations in NLP…