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 icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers --skill responding-to-peer-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowersWrote 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/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/responding-to-peer-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/responding-to-peer-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/responding-to-peer-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/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/responding-to-peer-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/responding-to-peer-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 188 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00036 | $0.02082 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.01041 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00416 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00208 |
Grade A, and why
responding-to-peer-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 11d 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 — 276 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Responding to Peer Review
Purpose
Convert reviewer reports into a traceable revision process. This skill separates what the reviewer explicitly requested from what the author infers, classifies the scholarly issue behind each comment, and links every response to an actual manuscript change or a reasoned decision not to change.
The goal is neither automatic compliance nor rhetorical resistance. It is accountable revision.
Contract
Accepts authentic reviewer or editor comments, the submitted manuscript, revision files, journal instructions, prior audit reports, and author decisions.
Requires the exact comments and enough manuscript context to locate the issue. A point-by-point response requires either completed revisions or an explicit planned-action status.
Produces normalized ReviewerComment and RevisionAction records, a comment classification, response strategy, manuscript change log, point-by-point response draft, unresolved conflicts, and a peer-review-response gate report.
May produce a revision plan, editor cover note, disagreement rationale, grouped response to overlapping comments, or requests for clarification.
Fails when comments are invented, reviewer identities or motives are guessed, claimed revisions do not exist, contradictory reviewer requests remain unresolved without an editor decision, or the author asks to conceal noncompliance.
Guarantees that each reviewer comment is accounted for and connected to a response status, manuscript location, and evidence of change or reasoned non-change.
Does not guarantee reviewer satisfaction, acceptance, correct interpretation of ambiguous comments, or resolution of conflicting editorial demands.
When to use
Use after receiving formal reviewer or editor reports, during revision planning, while drafting the response letter, and before resubmission to verify that claimed changes are present.
Do not simulate peer review with this skill. Use reviewing-manuscript or stress-testing-argument for internal review. This skill requires real comments or clearly labeled hypothetical training material.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 276 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 6b91236348a2
responding-to-peer-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers (16 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 2,082 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
quantum-qiskit
Reference qiskit 2.x patterns for variational quantum machine learning. Covers data-encoding feature maps, variational quantum classifier (VQC) training, variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) for chemistry, matrix-product-state circuits, and noise model integration. Use when writing Python code that imports qiskit…
fba-simulator
Run Flux Balance Analysis (FBA) and related constraint-based simulations using COBRApy. Covers standard FBA, parsimonious FBA (pFBA), Flux Variability Analysis (FVA), loopless FBA, gene/reaction knockouts, and carbon source swapping. Outputs flux distributions and CSV files.
gsmm-validator
Validate a COBRApy genome-scale metabolic model for mass/charge balance, stoichiometric consistency, biomass producibility, dead-end metabolites, thermodynamic loops, and GPR rule formatting. Outputs a structured validation report with errors and warnings.
metabolic-study-planner
Plan publishable constraint-based metabolic modelling studies when the user has a broad biological or metabolic-engineering topic but no concrete dataset, organism, model, or hypothesis. Selects feasible BiGG/COBRA models, objectives, perturbations, analyses, metrics, figures, and risk controls before FBA code is…
gsmm-builder
Build or load a genome-scale metabolic model (GSMM) using COBRApy. Covers loading from BIGG, constructing minimal models from scratch, setting medium constraints, and exporting validated .json model files.
stat-research-orchestrator
Orchestrate a statistical research pipeline centered on formal problem formulation, method proposal, theoretical analysis, experimental evaluation, comparison, and final result synthesis.