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 Mathews-Tom/armory --skill manuscript-provenancegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Mathews-Tom/armoryWrote 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/mathews-tom/armory/manuscript-provenance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mathews-tom/armory/manuscript-provenance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mathews-tom/armory/manuscript-provenance/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/mathews-tom/armory/manuscript-provenance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mathews-tom/armory/manuscript-provenance.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 | $0.00070 | $0.04413 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00035 | $0.02207 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00883 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00441 |
Grade A, and why
manuscript-provenance 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 10d 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 — 462 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Manuscript Provenance Audit
Pipeline position: Phase 2a (grounding audit). Runs in parallel with manuscript-typography. Depends on: content settled after Phase 1 fixes. Produces macro manifest consumed by manuscript-review Pass 13 (Cross-Element Coherence).
Purpose
Verify that a manuscript is a faithful rendering of computational outputs. Every number, table, figure, category label, ordering, and threshold in the document must trace to a specific script, config file, or pipeline output. Manual data entry in a manuscript is a reproducibility defect.
This skill produces a provenance map — a structured report linking each manuscript artifact to its generating code — and flags every break in the chain.
Companion skill: manuscript-review audits the document as prose (structure,
argumentation, citations). This skill audits whether the document content is
computationally grounded. Run both for complete pre-publication coverage.
Boundary Agreement with manuscript-review
| Concern | manuscript-review | This skill (manuscript-provenance) |
|---|---|---|
| Reproducibility | Does the paper describe enough to reproduce? (§6) | Does the code actually produce what the paper claims? (§1, §7) |
| Figures/Tables | Legible, accessible, well-formatted? (§12) | Generated by scripts, not manual entry? (§2, §3) |
| Rendered visuals | Readable at print scale? Floats near references? (§23) | Figure generation script produces correct format? (§3) |
| Hyperparameters | Listed in the paper with rationale? (§6) | Values trace to config files, not hardcoded? (§1, §8) |
| Code availability | Statement exists in the paper? (§17) | Repo URL valid, README accurate, pipeline works? (§11) |
| Terminology | Abbreviations consistent within document? (§14) | Terms match code identifiers? (§5) |
| Significant figures | Consistent precision within document? (§12) | Precision matches script output? (§2) |
| Figure format | Appropriate format for document quality? (§12) | Format generated by script, not manually exported? (§3) |
| Computational cost | Reported in the paper? (§7) | Values trace to benchmarking scripts? (§1) |
| Macro-prose coherence | Prose framing appropriate for injected value? (§24) | Value traced to code, macro manifest produced? (§4) |
| Cross-element consistency | Prose, captions, figures, tables mutually consistent? (§24) | All elements from same run/pipeline output? (§9) |
What ships with it
3 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.
- 10d ago First seen · 462 lines · 70 tokens per session scan A 54875231ce50
manuscript-provenance is a skill published in the GitHub repository Mathews-Tom/armory (316 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 70 tokens to every session and 4,413 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
or-solver
Unified solver detection, installation, selection, and license configuration for OR optimization skills (LP, MIP, SOCP). One-stop solver management: detect installed packages, install missing solvers with proper priority, select the best available solver by problem type, and troubleshoot common errors. Covers 20…
cdopt-optimization
Use when Codex needs to solve, reproduce, test, compare, generate examples for, or diagnose CDOpt manifold optimization workflows, including CDOpt package smoke tests, official problem description cards, Stiefel dictionary learning, SciPy wrappers, PyTorch/JAX/NumPy CDOpt examples, dependency checks, tiny CPU…
linear-programming
Models and solves linear programs (LP) with multiple solvers (COPT, Gurobi, MOSEK, CPLEX, HiGHS (scipy/highspy), CLARABEL, PuLP/CBC, CVXOPT, OR-Tools/GLOP, GLPK, SoPlex, lpsolve, ECOS). Restates natural-language word problems into LP before building and solving. When no local solver is available, searches GitHub for…
copt-linear-program
A tool for turning linear programming problems into mathematical models and solving them with Cardinal Optimizer, a software package for optimization. It can start from a word problem or from supplied matrices and JSON data.
osqp-solver
Model, solve, update, reproduce, and diagnose continuous convex quadratic programs with the OSQP Python interface, including canonical-form conversion, sparse CSC data, solver-status gates, residual checks, infeasibility certificates, warm starts, repeated parametric QPs, and academic citation. Use when a task names…
second-order-cone-programming
Models and solves second-order cone programs and problems convertible to SOCP form using cvxpy with multiple solver backends (COPT, Gurobi, MOSEK, CPLEX, CLARABEL, ECOS, SCS, CVXOPT, COSMO, OSQP). Handles linear objectives with second-order cone constraints, as well as problems reducible to SOCP such as portfolio…