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 reviewing-manuscriptgit 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/reviewing-manuscript)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/reviewing-manuscript"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/reviewing-manuscript/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/reviewing-manuscript"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers/reviewing-manuscript.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to high
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 →
- high Anti-Refusal · line 92 Skill instructs the agent to omit warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Stripping safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.Fix: Remove instructions that suppress warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Let the agent surface safety-relevant caveats to the user.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 48 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 | $0.00038 | $0.02125 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.01063 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00425 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00213 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-manuscript 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 — 236 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing a Manuscript
Purpose
Review a manuscript as an integrated scholarly argument rather than as a collection of polished paragraphs. The review identifies strengths, blocking weaknesses, revision priorities, and decisions that remain the researcher's responsibility.
This skill is not a simulated hostile reviewer and not a guarantee of acceptance. Its task is to reconstruct the manuscript fairly, test whether its parts support one another, and produce an actionable revision map.
Contract
Accepts a complete or substantial manuscript, research brief, argument map, journal guidelines, prior gate reports, citation audit, terminology ledger, or reviewer criteria.
Requires enough of the manuscript to reconstruct its central question, thesis, evidence, method, and contribution. A target genre or venue is strongly recommended.
Produces a manuscript review, reconstructed argument, strengths, findings by severity, revision priorities, venue-fit observations where evidence is available, and a manuscript-review gate report.
May produce section-level annotations, a revision sequence, an editorial triage table, or handoffs to citation, terminology, scope, argument, or peer-review-response skills.
Fails when the manuscript is unavailable, only a title or abstract is supplied for whole-manuscript judgment, the requested review requires invented sources or reviewer opinions, or venue criteria cannot be verified.
Guarantees that major criticisms are linked to observable manuscript evidence and that severity is distinguished from stylistic preference.
Does not guarantee publication, reviewer agreement, originality, factual truth, or disciplinary adequacy beyond the materials and expertise available.
When to use
Use after a coherent draft exists, before external circulation, after major structural revision, before selecting final submission status, or when a researcher needs a prioritized diagnosis rather than line editing.
Do not use this skill as a substitute for citation audit, specialist fact checking, or copyediting. It may identify the need for those operations and route the manuscript accordingly.
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 · 236 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A aaeb63a9a7a5
reviewing-manuscript is a skill published in the GitHub repository icerain-cmd/humanities-superpowers (16 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 2,125 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.