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 Lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills --skill peer-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skillsWrote 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/lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills/peer-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills/peer-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills/peer-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/lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills/peer-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills/peer-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 | $0.00066 | $0.02595 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00033 | $0.01298 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00519 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00260 |
Grade A, and why
peer-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 5d 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
94% identical to peer-review — 0 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 — 306 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Peer Review
Support an accountable human reviewer with a rigorous, fair, actionable assessment. Treat every unpublished submission and review as confidential.
Mandatory safety boundary
Before reading or analyzing unpublished content:
- Confirm the user is authorized by the publisher, editor, author, or other material owner.
- Check the target venue’s review, confidentiality, co-review, retention, and AI/tool policies.
- Record conflicts, competence limits, requested scope, and specialist-review needs.
- Default to local-only processing.
If authorization is unclear, do not inspect or quote the manuscript. Ask for confirmation or use only the bundled local CLIs, whose reports do not echo manuscript text.
Never:
- Send unpublished manuscript, supplement, review, or editorial text to an external service without specific publisher/author authorization and venue permission
- Upload confidential content to a public model, search engine, citation service, grammar tool, plagiarism checker, or image service
- Reuse content for training, benchmarking, product improvement, or unrelated research
- Read broad environment state,
.envfiles, API keys, or credentials - Call a network, LLM, or image API from bundled tools
- Invoke another skill or a PDF/image pipeline automatically
- Impersonate an assigned reviewer, editor, journal, funder, or author
- Fabricate manuscript details, review findings, citations, analyses, experiments, reproduction, or an editorial outcome
- Announce a decision that belongs to an editor or panel
Delete local copies and derivatives when policy requires; otherwise retain only what the controlling policy authorizes. Record deletion or retention without copying confidential content into the record.
Read references/ethical_review_practice.md before handling confidential material.
Human accountability
Label generated text as a working draft. The accountable human must:
- Read the complete authorized submission and relevant supplements
- Verify every factual statement, calculation, citation, and manuscript location
- Resolve conflicts and disclose assistance as required
- Rewrite comments in their own expert judgment
- Submit through the authorized channel
What ships with it
23 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.
- assets/citation_references_template.csv 196 B
- assets/claim_evidence_matrix_template.csv 745 B
- assets/reporting_checklist_template.csv 968 B
- assets/reporting_guidelines.json 13 KB
- assets/review_intake_template.json 1.3 KB
- assets/review_scaffold_template.md 3.0 KB
- assets/source_ledger.csv 8.9 KB
- assets/statistical_reproducibility_template.json 7.1 KB
- assets/study_profile_template.json 197 B
- references/common_issues.md 14 KB
- references/ethical_review_practice.md 11 KB
- references/reporting_standards.md 14 KB
- references/security_validation.md 3.5 KB
- references/statistical_reproducibility.md 11 KB
- references/tool_reference.md 7.6 KB
- scripts/_common.py 14 KB runs code
- scripts/audit_citations.py 6.9 KB runs code
- scripts/audit_statistics_reproducibility.py 10 KB runs code
- scripts/generate_review_scaffold.py 2.6 KB runs code
- scripts/lint_review.py 8.9 KB runs code
- scripts/select_reporting_guidelines.py 13 KB runs code
- scripts/validate_claim_evidence.py 6.9 KB runs code
- scripts/validate_review_intake.py 14 KB runs code
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.
- 5d ago Changed · +17 lines 3422beafc240
- 12d ago First seen · 289 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A fed0262d707a
peer-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Lzy599775/agent-auto-sci-skills (2 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 2,595 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to peer-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
papers-reading-skill
Evidence-grounded AI research workflow for turning supplied economics, finance, management, and social-science papers or structured records into versioned PaperReading artifacts. Use when Codex must ingest text, Markdown, or a text-based PDF; separate source-grounded claims from researcher analysis; bind findings to…
scopus-researcher
Expert academic researcher using the Scopus MCP. Finds papers, retrieves full abstracts, builds author profiles, analyzes citation impact, and constructs advanced Boolean queries across the Elsevier Scopus database. Activate when asked to search for academic papers, analyze research trends, find citations, profile…
write-literature-review
Iterative literature-review workflow for a research topic. Use this skill to draft up to 10 search keywords, build a seed set from OpenAlex title-and-abstract matches, expand by backward and forward citations, screen candidates by title and abstract, repeat until no new relevant papers remain, rank the final set…
nature-experiment-log
A workflow for turning experiment notes, images, audio, or text into structured Markdown laboratory logs with YAML metadata. It can also organize raw attachments and optionally connect the logs to Feishu or Obsidian.
researchwrite
Proposal-first scientific writing pipeline, installed under the compatibility trigger researchwrite and the repository package name nature-proposal-writer. Use for composing, revising, or auditing research proposals, opening reports, research plans, and evidence-grounded scientific writing. Three modes…
nature-writing
Draft, restructure, or plan Nature-style manuscript sections and initial-submission materials from author-provided claims, results, figures, notes, or Chinese drafts. Use for abstracts, introductions, related work, methods, Results or experiments, discussions, conclusions, titles, full manuscript arguments, and…