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 mehdiforoozandeh/crux --skill crux-litsearchgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mehdiforoozandeh/cruxWrote 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/mehdiforoozandeh/crux/crux-litsearch)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mehdiforoozandeh/crux/crux-litsearch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mehdiforoozandeh/crux/crux-litsearch/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/mehdiforoozandeh/crux/crux-litsearch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mehdiforoozandeh/crux/crux-litsearch.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 | $0.00204 | $0.01301 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00082 | $0.00520 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00041 | $0.00260 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00130 |
Grade A, and why
crux-litsearch 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 1mo 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 — 117 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
crux-litsearch — write the scope, then stop
A crux wiki's PI curates raw/ from memory. This skill replaces that with the citation
graph's own answer: start from papers the PI already trusts, walk outward, and rank what
comes back by how much of the seed set reaches it.
You do the conversation and write one file; the engine crawls and ranks. You never run the
crawl and never put anything in raw/ unasked — crux-wiki's rule
that the PI alone curates sources holds; they just curate from a computed list, not memory.
The two asks and the one approval
Ask 1 — what is this search for? One paragraph in the PI's own words, not a keyword list: it is what they read in a month to remember why these papers. Write what they say, not a tidied version.
Ask 2 — which papers do you already trust? The ask that matters, and where the turns go. Target 3–8: fewer and the shared subgraph is whatever one paper happened to cite, more and the seeds stop agreeing on a subject. Take DOIs where the PI has them; where they name a paper instead, resolve it and read the title back before it enters the file — a wrong seed is invisible in the output and poisons every rank.
If the PI has no seeds, propose five or six papers by name from what you know of the
field, say plainly that these are suggestions and not a search result, and let the PI strike
what does not belong. Never invent a DOI — resolve each accepted title with
crux ingest raw/<file> --doi … and let OpenAlex supply the identifier.
Approval — the file. Write wiki/lit/<slug>/scope.md, run crux lit lint <slug>, fix
anything it reports, show the PI the file, and stop. The PI runs the crawl.
What you write
---
type: lit-scope
slug: <the directory name>
---
## Problem
<the PI's paragraph>
## Seeds
- 10.1038/nmeth.1906
- W4230875896
## Out of scope
- <what the PI said not to bother with>
## Out of scope is for you to read later, going through the list; the engine does not
filter on it.
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.
- 1mo ago Changed · +7 lines 621bceeaf438
- 1mo ago First seen · 110 lines · 204 tokens per session scan A 46844033a59c
crux-litsearch is a skill published in the GitHub repository mehdiforoozandeh/crux (18 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 204 tokens to every session and 1,301 once invoked, about $0.0008 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-21.
Other skills, from other repositories
ab-testing
Use when designing or analyzing a controlled experiment — falsifiable hypothesis, sample size from an MDE, reading significance/CI/power, CUPED, or rescuing tests that won't go significant. NOT recurring metric tracking (that is analytics), NOT north-star/KPI trees (that is kpi-framework), NOT projecting metrics…
research-manager
Use this when starting a new research project or managing a complex, multi-step research workflow.
academic-writing
You must use this when producing any research prose — literature reviews, syntheses, analyses, methodology descriptions, discussion sections, abstracts, or any written output intended for an academic audience.
ab-testing-ecommerce
Run controlled experiments on product pages, checkout flows, and pricing to find what converts best using statistical significance testing.
systematic-review
You must use this when conducting PRISMA-standard systematic reviews, protocol development, or Risk of Bias assessment.
hypothesis-testing
You must use this when formulating testable hypotheses, designing experimental controls, or defining falsification criteria.