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 Marazii/research-co-pilot --skill peer-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Marazii/research-co-pilotWrote 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/marazii/research-co-pilot/peer-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/marazii/research-co-pilot/peer-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/marazii/research-co-pilot/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/marazii/research-co-pilot/peer-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/marazii/research-co-pilot/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 | $0.00210 | $0.22225 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00105 | $0.11113 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00042 | $0.04445 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00021 | $0.02223 |
Grade B, and why
peer-review scanned grade B with 1 finding 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 11d 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.
Tells the agent never to refusemediumAnti-refusal
Suppressing the ability to decline removes a core safety control; a later harmful request then succeeds.
- Do not refuse to deliver a verdict. Even uncertain verdicts must be stated, with the uncertainty made explicit. Downgraded: this mod is about security review, or the phrase is quoted, so it is likely naming the pattern rather than instructing it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 1,221 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Peer Review
A two-mode skill for rigorous academic critique. Mode 1 is paper review (treat the work as a candidate for publication or formal scholarly contribution). Mode 2 is homework review (treat the work as a student submission whose author is still learning the craft). The voice is generic seasoned professor: direct, substantive, neither cruel nor deferential.
When to invoke
Always invoke this skill when:
- User types
/peer-review,/peer-review --paper,/peer-review --homework,/peer-review --iterate,/peer-review --committee,/peer-review --fact-check,/peer-review --plagiarism-check, or/peer-review --draft(flags can combine, e.g.,/peer-review --paper --committeeor/peer-review --fact-check --paper). - User asks for review, critique, evaluation, feedback, or assessment of a paper, thesis, essay, proposal, abstract, dissertation chapter, problem set, course assignment, term paper, or research note.
- User submits an academic-looking text and asks any variant of "what do you think" or "is this good".
- User asks to "tear apart", "stress-test", or "find the holes in" an academic argument.
- User asks for a "committee," "panel," or "multiple reviewers" perspective on a piece of academic work.
- User asks to verify citations, fact-check sources, audit for hallucinations, or check whether AI was used in a piece of writing.
- User shares unfinished work and asks for direction-level feedback, generative input, or thinking-partner engagement; or describes the work as a draft, work-in-progress, sketch, or early version. This is draft mode; see Step 10.
- User engages substantively with a prior review delivered by this skill in the same conversation (defending a point, pushing back on a verdict, asking for elaboration, sharing a rewritten passage). This is iterate mode; see Step 11.
Step 1: Identify mode
Three axes:
Verdict register (mutually exclusive):
paper: the work is meant for, or claims to be, a scholarly contribution. Verdict register: Accept / Minor revisions / Major revisions / Reject.homework: the work is a student submission. Verdict register: grade band (e.g., A range, B+ to A-, B range, C range, below passing) with what would lift it to the next band.
What ships with it
7 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 1,221 lines · 0 tokens per session scan B bea8e7a363f4
peer-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Marazii/research-co-pilot (12 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 210 tokens to every session and 22,225 once invoked, about $0.0011 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (tells the agent never to refuse). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
creative-thinking-for-research
Applies cognitive science frameworks for creative thinking to CS and AI research ideation. Use when seeking genuinely novel research directions by leveraging combinatorial creativity, analogical reasoning, constraint manipulation, and other empirically grounded creative strategies.
Academic Essay
Structures and drafts argumentative academic essays - a contestable thesis, claim-evidence-analysis body paragraphs, a fairly-engaged counterargument, and a synthesizing conclusion - marking every spot that needs a real citation instead of inventing sources. Use when a student or writer asks "help me outline my…
understand-explain
Use when you need a deep-dive explanation of a specific file, function, or module in the codebase.
baoyu-comic
A tool for creating original educational comics that explain knowledge or ideas through multiple illustrated panels. It supports different art styles and tones and can create several comics in one batch.
semantic-scholar
Search published venue papers (IEEE, ACM, Springer, etc.) via Semantic Scholar API. Complements /arxiv (preprints) with citation counts, venue metadata, and TLDR. Use when user says "search semantic scholar", "find IEEE papers", "find journal papers", "venue papers", "citation search", or wants published literature…
skill-creation-walkthrough
Step-by-step guide for creating your own Claude Skills, from deciding whether a skill is the right tool to writing the SKILL.md file, structuring reference material, and making it trigger reliably. Use when you want to package a workflow, framework, or repeated task into a reusable Skill, when an existing skill is not…