claude-scientific-writer: Skill for Claude Code

.claude/skills/scholar-evaluation/SKILL.md

scholar-evaluation is a skill for Claude Code from K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer. It costs 43 tokens per session (2,207 once invoked), scanned A, a copy of scholar-evaluation, MIT.

A guide to giving developmental, evidence-traceable feedback on papers, drafts, research plans, literature reviews, and research ideas. It can also audit low-stakes research-assessment rubrics.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review research work or audit a low-stakes assessment process; it is not for ranking people or making decisions about hiring, admissions, funding, promotion, or discipline.
Why use it?
It helps make scholarly feedback more grounded in submitted evidence and exposes weaknesses in how a review or assessment process handles quality, uncertainty, fairness, and traceability.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: allowed-tools in frontmatter.

This is K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer's own configuration. It tells Claude Code how to work on claude-scientific-writer itself, so it is not a mod to install elsewhere. Copy it as a starting point and replace the rules that are about this project. Everything claude-scientific-writer configures →

About the project

Claude Scientific Writer is an AI-assisted research and writing tool that searches literature and produces documents such as scientific papers, reports, posters, grant proposals, and reviews with citations. Researchers and technical writers can use it as a Claude Code plugin, Python package, or command-line tool, with the catalogue entries defining agent workflows for it.

K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer · 2,324 stars · on GitHub · k-dense.ai

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer/main/.claude/skills/scholar-evaluation/SKILL.md
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for scholar-evaluation

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/k-dense-ai/claude-scientific-writer/scholar-evaluation/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/k-dense-ai/claude-scientific-writer/scholar-evaluation)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/k-dense-ai/claude-scientific-writer/scholar-evaluation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/k-dense-ai/claude-scientific-writer/scholar-evaluation/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for scholar-evaluation

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/k-dense-ai/claude-scientific-writer/scholar-evaluation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/k-dense-ai/claude-scientific-writer/scholar-evaluation.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 43 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,207 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin 91% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00043 $0.02207
Opus 5 $0.00022 $0.01104
Sonnet 5 $0.00009 $0.00441
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00221

Measured 12d ago against content hash 902c41a08cb5, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-11, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

scholar-evaluation 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.

The scan reads SKILL.md. This mod also ships 8 executable files (scripts/_common.py, scripts/calculate_scores.py, scripts/check_process.py, …), listed below but not scanned — reading those needs a real analyzer, not pattern matching.

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.

Origin

This is a copy

91% identical to scholar-evaluation — 19 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.

.claude/skills/scholar-evaluation/SKILL.md · 297 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 297 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Scholar Evaluation

Purpose

Provide developmental, evidence-traceable feedback on a scholarly work: paper, draft, protocol, literature synthesis, or research idea. Use qualitative judgment first. Optional scores only describe how submitted evidence maps to a predeclared bounded rubric.

This skill also audits whether a low-stakes assessment process documents its construct, provenance, rater quality, uncertainty, traceability, sensitivity, fairness, accessibility, privacy, and human governance.

Hard safety boundary

Never use this skill to automate, recommend, materially influence, or score:

  • hiring, promotion, or tenure;
  • admissions;
  • grants or other funding;
  • prizes, honors, or awards;
  • discipline, dismissal, or sanctions; or
  • any other high-impact personnel decision.

Never rank people. Never reduce a person to a composite score. Never infer ability, character, integrity, protected traits, future performance, or worth. A nominal human-in-the-loop does not remove this boundary.

If asked for a prohibited use, stop. Offer developmental comments on a scholarly work or a process-only audit that does not process applications, compare people, recommend an outcome, or advise a decision.

Do not issue publication-readiness, accept/reject, or “top-tier” judgments.

Read references/responsible_assessment.md before any organizational use.

ScholarEval status

The referenced ScholarEval project is an experimental literature-grounded research-idea evaluation framework, not validated psychometrics.

The verified primary record is Moussa et al., ScholarEval: Research Idea Evaluation Grounded in Literature, arXiv:2510.16234v2, revised 2026-02-28. It reports a retrieval-augmented soundness/contribution framework, a 117-idea four-discipline dataset, coverage experiments, and a user study.

Do not generalize those results to person assessment, consequential decisions, all disciplines, or this skill's rubric. No peer-reviewed publication status was verified during the dated review. See references/source_ledger.md.

Read the full file on GitHub · 297 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 12d ago First seen · 297 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 902c41a08cb5

Subscribe to this mod's changes

scholar-evaluation is a skill published in the GitHub repository K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer (2,324 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 2,207 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to scholar-evaluation, differing in 19 lines, and is treated as a copy.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

frontmcp-development

Use when building any FrontMCP server component other than a tool (for tools, use create-tool). Covers @Resource static resources and parameterized URI templates; @Prompt reusable prompts (RAG, multi-turn); @Provider singleton dependency-injection providers (database pools, API clients); @Agent autonomous LLM agents…

agentfront/frontmcp · 196 tokens

browser-automation-expert

Drive a real browser to navigate, extract data and complete flows on sites without an API: scraping, crawling, authentication, dynamic content and anti-bot handling. Use when the user mentions web scraping, crawling, browser automation, Puppeteer or headless Chrome, wants data pulled from a website, needs a login or…

personamanagmentlayer/pcl · 94 tokens

document-processing-expert

Read, generate and modify office documents and PDFs from code: PDF extraction and forms, Word documents, Excel workbooks and PowerPoint decks. Use when the user mentions PDF, DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, Word, Excel, PowerPoint or spreadsheets, wants data extracted from documents, needs a report or invoice generated as a file…

personamanagmentlayer/pcl · 102 tokens

testing-expert

Expert-level software testing with unit tests, integration tests, E2E tests, TDD/BDD, and testing best practices. Use when the user mentions TDD, BDD, unit tests, integration tests, or end-to-end tests, or when the task involves Testing Fundamentals, Unit Testing, Integration Testing, or End-to-End Testing.

personamanagmentlayer/pcl · 73 tokens

git-expert

Expert-level Git version control with advanced workflows, branching strategies, and best practices for team collaboration. Use when the user mentions version control, collaboration, or workflow, or when the task involves Essential Git Commands, Advanced Git Techniques, Branching Strategies, or Conflict Resolution.

personamanagmentlayer/pcl · 57 tokens

agent-memory-mcp

A hybrid memory system that provides persistent, searchable knowledge management for AI agents (Architecture, Patterns, Decisions).

lingxling/awesome-skills-cn · 26 tokens