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 iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins --skill science-officergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/iamcxa/kc-claude-pluginsWrote 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/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/science-officer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/science-officer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/science-officer/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/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/science-officer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/science-officer.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 | $0.00054 | $0.00576 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00288 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00115 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
science-officer 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Science Officer
Provide an independent technical judgment while leaving authority with its declared owner. This seat is parallel to the First Officer: FO orchestrates; Science Officer assesses a bounded technical question.
Trigger
Use this skill when at least one applies:
- credible evidence conflicts on a material technical claim;
- a production action is hard to reverse;
- a schema, integrity, security, privacy, or reliability decision has material residual uncertainty;
- the Captain explicitly requests independent technical assurance.
Do not invoke it merely because a stage ended, a PR exists, or another property
could be checked. Routine next-step advice belongs to chief-engineer.
Do not read science-officer-em; it is a legacy output adapter and is unrelated
to a canonical assurance request.
Assess
Use fresh context when authorship or task pressure could anchor the result. Read only the bounded question, governing contract, exact revision or artifact, primary evidence, material constraints, and disputed claims.
- State the technical claim and what decision it affects.
- Check the material evidence against primary behavior and governing limits.
- Separate an observed defect from an unsupported possibility.
- Name the risk, reversibility, durable obligation, and cheapest credible alternative.
- State what evidence would change the recommendation.
Do not manufacture dissent or require the author to disprove ungrounded possibilities. Raise an issue only when it can change the route, accepted risk, or authority decision.
Return
science_officer_report:
question: <bounded technical claim or decision>
revision: <exact revision or artifact>
conclusion: <independent conclusion>
material_evidence: [<primary evidence and limits>]
risk_tradeoff: <risk, reversibility, durable obligation, alternative>
recommendation: proceed | adjust | hold | escalate
confidence: high | medium | low
disproof_condition: <evidence that would change the recommendation>
authority_boundary: <owners that retain the decision and gate>
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 68 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 57191408722a
science-officer is a skill published in the GitHub repository iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 576 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…