Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to joshzyj/open-scholar-skill. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/joshzyj/open-scholar-skill/main/.claude/skills/scholar-code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/joshzyj/open-scholar-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/joshzyj/open-scholar-skill/scholar-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/joshzyj/open-scholar-skill/scholar-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joshzyj/open-scholar-skill/scholar-code-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/joshzyj/open-scholar-skill/scholar-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joshzyj/open-scholar-skill/scholar-code-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 | $0.00146 | $0.08958 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00073 | $0.04479 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00029 | $0.01792 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00896 |
Grade A, and why
scholar-code-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 9d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 608 lines · 146 tokens per session scan A 1d84b26c769d
scholar-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository joshzyj/open-scholar-skill (142 stars, last pushed yesterday), with no licence file. It adds 146 tokens to every session and 8,958 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
review-paper-code
Review research code for reproducibility and quality, extract the paper's main empirical claims, compare paper to code, and write a constructive markdown report. Designed for social science / economics projects with LaTeX papers and Stata, R, or Python code.
review-r
Read-only R code review protocol for .R scripts. Checks code quality, reproducibility, domain correctness, tidyverse idioms, and professional standards; produces a report without editing. Use when user says "review this R script", "check the R code", "audit the analysis code", "code review on the R", or when an R file…
aris-experiment-bridge
Code review focused on experiment integrity, not general code quality. Check reproducibility, config-driven design, baseline fairness, seed handling. Triggers: "review experiment code", "check implementation", "bridge review", "is this code reproducible", "audit experiment implementation".
workflows:review
Run multi-agent econometric review on estimation code, identification arguments, and research artifacts.
referee2
Systematic audit and review by Referee 2. Two modes — "deck" reviews slide presentations for rhetoric, visual quality, and compile cleanliness; "code" performs cross-language replication and econometric audit of empirical pipelines. Use when reviewing slides, auditing code, or verifying replication.
review-asi-contributions
Independently evaluate whether a SlopDotCash/asi contribution delivers a reproducible hill climb, measured research advancement or refutation, or an actual reproduced bug fix. Reject generic improvements, cleanup, and trivial work.