Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LigphiDonk/Oh-my--papernpx agentmods add skills/ligphidonk/oh-my--paper/inno-paper-reviewerWrote 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-paper-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ligphidonk/oh-my--paper/inno-paper-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ligphidonk/oh-my--paper/inno-paper-reviewer/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-paper-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ligphidonk/oh-my--paper/inno-paper-reviewer.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 | $0.00016 | $0.05109 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.02554 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.01022 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00511 |
Grade A, and why
inno-paper-reviewer 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to peer-review — 63 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 619 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
inno-paper-reviewer
Canonical Summary
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive...
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
Scientific Critical Evaluation and Peer Review
Overview
Peer review is a systematic process for evaluating scientific manuscripts. Assess methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, and reporting standards. Apply this skill for manuscript and grant review across disciplines with constructive, rigorous evaluation.
When to Use This Skill
This skill should be used when:
- Conducting peer review of scientific manuscripts for journals
- Evaluating grant proposals and research applications
- Assessing methodology and experimental design rigor
- Reviewing statistical analyses and reporting standards
- Evaluating reproducibility and data availability
- Checking compliance with reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA)
- Providing constructive feedback on scientific writing
Visual Enhancement with Scientific Schematics
When creating documents with this skill, always consider adding scientific diagrams and schematics to enhance visual communication.
What ships with it
2 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.
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 · 619 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 2368b8b978b8
inno-paper-reviewer 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 5,109 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to peer-review, differing in 63 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
kami-deck
A lab-meeting deck on gut-microbiome links to sleep quality — the design, the results, the caveats, and the next experiment. Built as a decision-grade academic research deck for lab group, PI.
html-ppt-zhangzara-monochrome
A grant proposal on CRISPR base-editing for sickle-cell disease — the hypothesis, the approach, the milestones, and the risk. Built as a decision-grade academic research deck for grant review committee.
Paper Writing Skills Index
Routing and workflow skill family for paper-writing tasks. Covers manuscript drafting, journal and conference papers, grant proposals, lab reports, group-meeting reports, talks, workshop notes, reviewer rebuttals, academic HTML/PDF/LaTeX output with editable-block contracts, citation grounding, evidence checking, and…
kami-deck
A lab-meeting deck on gut-microbiome links to sleep quality — the design, the results, the caveats, and the next experiment. Built as a decision-grade academic research deck for lab group, PI.
html-ppt-zhangzara-monochrome
A grant proposal on CRISPR base-editing for sickle-cell disease — the hypothesis, the approach, the milestones, and the risk. Built as a decision-grade academic research deck for grant review committee.
hps-academic-paper
A review deck on compositional generalization in large language models — the field map, the gap, the evidence, and open questions. Built as a decision-grade academic research deck for PI, lab group, reviewers.