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 gyf9712/stat-theory-skills --skill theory-sharpengit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gyf9712/stat-theory-skillsWrote 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/gyf9712/stat-theory-skills/theory-sharpen)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gyf9712/stat-theory-skills/theory-sharpen"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gyf9712/stat-theory-skills/theory-sharpen/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/gyf9712/stat-theory-skills/theory-sharpen"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gyf9712/stat-theory-skills/theory-sharpen.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 | $0.00105 | $0.10976 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00042 | $0.04390 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.02195 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.01098 |
Grade A, and why
theory-sharpen 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 1mo 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 — 884 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Theory-Sharpen — Systematic Theoretical Improvement Assessment
🔬 Model Recommendation: Run this skill on Claude Opus for best results. Framework classification, assumption-relaxation analysis, and rate-sharpening all require deep mathematical reasoning. If your session is not on Opus, run
/model opusbefore invoking. Literature search and Codex cross-review will use Opus sub-agents.
Go beyond "is the proof correct?" to ask "can the theory be stronger, sharper, and better aligned with the model, the literature, and the experiments?"
Pipeline position:
/proofcheck → /proof-repair → /theory-sharpen → /proof-writer
Correct? Fix issues Improve theory Write new proofs
This skill can also run standalone on any paper with theoretical results.
Context: $ARGUMENTS
Core Philosophy
A good theory paper is evaluated on three axes:
- Strength: Are assumptions as weak as possible? Are rates as sharp as possible?
- Alignment: Does the theory match what the model actually provides and what the experiments actually test?
- Positioning: How does the result compare to the best known results in the literature?
This skill systematically audits all three axes and produces an actionable improvement roadmap.
Step 0: Ingest & Map the Theory-Model-Experiment Triangle
0A: Locate Inputs
Parse $ARGUMENTS. Accept:
- A
.texfile path → read directly - A paper directory → read
paper.tex+ any/proofcheckaudit if it exists - If
/proofcheckaudit exists, leverageassumption_ledger.md,theorem_inventory.md,dependency_graph.mdfor a head start
0B: Extract the Three Pillars
Read the paper and extract three structured inventories:
Pillar 1: Theory — What the theorems claim
| ID | Result | Assumptions used | Rate / bound | Constants | Regime | Location |
|---|
For each result, record:
- Exact assumptions (named + implicit)
- Convergence rate or bound (e.g., $O(n^{-1/2})$, $O_P(n^{-2/(2+d)})$)
- Whether rate is minimax, near-minimax, or suboptimal (if known)
- Sample size / dimension regime (e.g., $n \gg d$, $n \gg d^2$, fixed $d$)
- Constants: universal, dimension-dependent, problem-parameter-dependent?
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 884 lines · 105 tokens per session scan A 1da0622a4fd3
theory-sharpen is a skill published in the GitHub repository gyf9712/stat-theory-skills (9 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 105 tokens to every session and 10,976 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
did
Design, estimate, validate, and write up a difference-in-differences analysis, using the post-2018 heterogeneity-robust toolkit with an explicit statement of which parallel-trends assumption is imposed. TRIGGER on "difference-in-differences", "DiD", "TWFE", "event study", "staggered adoption", "staggered rollout"…
field-experiment
Design, analyze, and write up randomized experiments (field experiments, A/B tests, RCTs): stratified and clustered designs, randomization inference, covariate adjustment done right, noncompliance, attrition and gated outcomes, treatment-effect heterogeneity, and interference. TRIGGER on "A/B test", "randomized…
iv
Design, estimate, validate, and write up an instrumental-variables analysis: single-instrument LATE designs, weak-instrument-robust inference, shift-share instruments, formula instruments that need recentering, and leniency (judge and examiner) designs estimated by UJIVE. TRIGGER on "instrumental variable", "IV"…
research-talk
Author a Quarto reveal.js deck for a research talk: seminar, conference, job talk, brown bag. TRIGGER on "slides for my talk", "seminar deck", "job talk", "turn this paper into slides", "add an appendix slide", "export a handout". Classroom material is teaching-lecture; auditing an existing deck is slide-review.
conjoint
Design, analyze, and write up conjoint experiments in both traditions: as randomized experiments identifying average marginal component effects, and as preference-measurement instruments (hierarchical Bayes partworths, WTP, choice-share simulation), with measurement-error correction, multiple-testing correction, and a…
rdd
Design, estimate, validate, and write up a regression discontinuity analysis, in both the continuity and local-randomization frameworks, with the full falsification battery and a refusal rule for designs that fail validation. TRIGGER on "regression discontinuity", "RDD", "running variable", "score cutoff", "rdrobust"…