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 LigphiDonk/Oh-my--paper --skill inno-idea-evalgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LigphiDonk/Oh-my--paperWrote 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/ligphidonk/oh-my--paper/inno-idea-eval)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ligphidonk/oh-my--paper/inno-idea-eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ligphidonk/oh-my--paper/inno-idea-eval/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/ligphidonk/oh-my--paper/inno-idea-eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ligphidonk/oh-my--paper/inno-idea-eval.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00016 | $0.05694 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.02847 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.01139 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00569 |
Grade A, and why
inno-idea-eval 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 13d 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 — 459 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
inno-idea-eval
Canonical Summary
Multi-persona idea evaluation with quality gate. Evaluates ideas across 5 InnoEval dimensions (Clarity, Novelty, Validity, Feasibility, Significance) using 3 reviewer personas and a meta-review. Sits between inno-idea-generation and inno-c...
Trigger Rules
Use this skill when the user request matches its research workflow scope. Prefer the bundled resources instead of recreating templates or reference material. Keep outputs traceable to project files, citations, scripts, or upstream evidence.
Resource Use Rules
- Read from
references/only when the current task needs the extra detail.
Execution Contract
- Resolve every relative path from this skill directory first.
- Prefer inspection before mutation when invoking bundled scripts.
- If a required runtime, CLI, credential, or API is unavailable, explain the blocker and continue with the best manual fallback instead of silently skipping the step.
- Do not write generated artifacts back into the skill directory; save them inside the active project workspace.
Upstream Instructions
Inno Idea Eval
Directory structure
skills/inno-idea-eval/
├── SKILL.md ← this file
├── prompts/
│ ├── build_eval_query.md ← Per-persona evaluation query (all 5 dims)
│ ├── build_evidence_assembly.md ← How to compose evidence from pipeline artifacts
│ ├── build_meta_review_query.md ← Area-chair aggregation of 3 persona reviews
│ ├── build_novelty_queries.md ← Query extraction for novelty verification (Step 0.5a)
│ ├── build_novelty_analysis.md ← Similarity analysis for novelty verification (Step 0.5c)
│ └── build_refinement_feedback_query.md ← Structured feedback for refinement loop
└── references/
├── eval_agent_instructions.md ← Full eval agent system prompt + scoring rubrics
├── novelty_verification_config.md ← Novelty search config, threat levels, fast-fail protocol
└── reviewer_personas.md ← 3 persona definitions + evidence filter logic
What ships with it
9 files 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.
- prompts/build_eval_query.md 3.0 KB
- prompts/build_evidence_assembly.md 4.9 KB
- prompts/build_meta_review_query.md 3.8 KB
- prompts/build_novelty_analysis.md 5.4 KB
- prompts/build_novelty_queries.md 3.8 KB
- prompts/build_refinement_feedback_query.md 3.3 KB
- references/eval_agent_instructions.md 5.9 KB
- references/novelty_verification_config.md 4.3 KB
- references/reviewer_personas.md 5.5 KB
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 459 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 65eddc9f413b
inno-idea-eval is a skill published in the GitHub repository LigphiDonk/Oh-my--paper (724 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 5,694 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
golden-dataset
Golden dataset lifecycle patterns for curation, versioning, quality validation, and CI integration. Use when building evaluation datasets, managing dataset versions, validating quality scores, or integrating golden tests into pipelines.
layerlens
Evaluate AI outputs with LayerLens. Upload traces, create judges, run evaluations, and retrieve quality scores -- all from within OpenClaw.
requesting-code-review
Self-reviews work against the plan before sign-off.
rag-eval
NVIDIA RAG Blueprint evaluation guidance for measuring retrieval and answer quality with stable datasets, baselines, and reproducible scoring workflows.
llm-evaluation
LLM evaluation — automated metrics, human feedback, benchmarking. Use when testing performance, measuring AI quality, or establishing evaluation frameworks.
llm-evaluator
Evaluate LLM outputs systematically using LLM-as-judge, human evaluation frameworks, and regression testing. Use when assessing model quality, comparing models, or preventing quality regression.