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 hanhuark/mechanical-engineering-research-skill --skill research-mentor-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hanhuark/mechanical-engineering-research-skillWrote 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/hanhuark/mechanical-engineering-research-skill/research-mentor-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hanhuark/mechanical-engineering-research-skill/research-mentor-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hanhuark/mechanical-engineering-research-skill/research-mentor-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/hanhuark/mechanical-engineering-research-skill/research-mentor-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hanhuark/mechanical-engineering-research-skill/research-mentor-review.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 | $0.00049 | $0.00554 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00277 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00111 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
research-mentor-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 2d 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 — 37 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Research Mentor Review
Purpose
Give the kind of feedback that helps a researcher improve independently: specific, prioritized, explainable, and tied to evidence, logic, and next actions. This is a mentoring workflow, not an impersonation of any advisor and not a substitute for authorship, supervisory judgment, or safety review.
Review Workflow
- Identify the deliverable, audience, decision it must support, available evidence, and the research stage.
- Start with what the work currently establishes and what remains unsupported.
- Review the highest-risk issues first: research question, novelty/gap logic, methods, assumptions, evidence quality, analysis, physical interpretation, and claim strength.
- Then address communication: paragraph/slide logic, citation practice, figures, tables, reproducibility, code, and presentation clarity.
- Convert each important critique into an actionable revision, validation, or question. Explain why it matters.
Feedback Standard
Separate:
- Required before a claim is defensible: missing evidence, invalid method, unsupported inference, citation issue, or reproducibility blocker.
- Recommended for clarity or impact: organization, figure design, concise wording, stronger comparison, or an additional sensitivity analysis.
- Questions for the author/advisor: scope, scientific priority, coauthor decision, target venue, resource commitment, or ethics and safety judgment.
Avoid generic praise, vague requests to "add detail," and invented literature or data. Quote or identify the exact location when possible. Keep the tone direct but respectful; explain the path forward rather than simply rejecting the work.
Formulaic Writing Check
When reviewing a manuscript or proposal, flag prose that reads as automatically assembled rather than technically chosen: detail-heavy abstracts, contrast words without a true contrast, vague establish claims, stacked hyphenated modifiers, and em-dash clauses. Describe the reader-facing problem and propose a specific revision. Do not infer or allege AI authorship from style alone.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 2d ago First seen · 37 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 33aa10c87071
research-mentor-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository hanhuark/mechanical-engineering-research-skill (16 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 554 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 2026-09-10.
Other skills, from other repositories
bdbsaastraining
Use when onboarding or training staff on the BDB SaaS Host Engine. Guides trainees via interactive workloads (WordPress, mail, agents) through SSH 2FA, Incus, and FastMCP guardrails, culminating in a PDF certificate.
tdmcp-implementation-learning
Study a merged or shipped tdmcp implementation and extract reusable learnings: code improvements, runtime/UX lessons, test gaps, docs updates, roadmap items, and harness changes. Use when the user asks to learn from a completed feature/project/PR/build, analyze what can be improved from an implementation, or turn a…
tutorial
Interactive tutorial teaching Ouroboros hands-on.
subscription-setup
A setup workflow for creating recurring medical-learning subscriptions after a doctor’s profile has been registered.
exam-material-recommendation
A study-material recommendation tool for doctors preparing for professional exams or job-related training. It uses the person’s target, timeline, available study time, and specialty, while treating the official exam syllabus as the main reference.
nw-dr-review-criteria
Critique dimensions, severity framework, verdict decision matrix, and review output format for documentation assessment reviews.