CCFA Skills is a family of agent skills that helps researchers develop the storyline and presentation of CCF-A research papers. It supports work across research ideas, literature, experiments, writing, figures, reviews, rebuttals, and submission while keeping the argument connected. The catalogue entry consists of the project's research-writing skills and plugin.
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 mikubaka88/CCFA-Skills --skill ccf-idea-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mikubaka88/CCFA-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/mikubaka88/ccfa-skills/ccf-idea-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mikubaka88/ccfa-skills/ccf-idea-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mikubaka88/ccfa-skills/ccf-idea-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/mikubaka88/ccfa-skills/ccf-idea-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mikubaka88/ccfa-skills/ccf-idea-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk warn
- 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 | $0.00098 | $0.01147 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00049 | $0.00574 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00229 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00115 |
Grade A, and why
ccf-idea-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 54 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
CCF Idea Reviewer
Invocation Controls
CCFA Handoff Mode: PARTIAL (Recommended). Follow metadata.ccf_skill_controls.handoff_question_mode, ../ccf-common/references/handoff-modes.md, and ../ccf-common/references/task-modes.md. Infer assessment from the requested judgment; an exact skill name, review keyword, or numeric score is unnecessary. A rough idea can still receive a serious concept assessment.
Choose by the object of judgment, not file type: a PDF supplied for “只看核心思路” remains idea review. Use ccf-idea-optimizer for requested development and ccf-paper-reviewer for manuscript evidence, scientific completeness, writing, or version readiness. Execute an explicitly combined review/development task through its respective owners without another permission round.
Core Rule
Judge problem importance, novelty against closest work, conceptual insight, mechanism coherence, elegance, and audience fit. Default to concept-only scope. Do not grade experiments, demand baselines/ablations/results, assess implementation resources, or lower the verdict because research is unfinished. Add experiment or feasibility assessment only when the user requests that extension, keeping it separate from the concept score.
Distinguish a logical contradiction from an untested hypothesis. A meaningful claim can be assessed before experimental validation. Separate concept quality, development potential, and confidence; do not turn uncertain novelty into demonstrated overlap or submission readiness into idea quality.
Every consequential criticism identifies the affected idea statement or assumption, its inspected basis, its significance, and the smallest repair. Do not fabricate prior art, results, reviewer agreement, or acceptance probability. Use abandon only after identifying why no meaningful formulation or plausible rescue remains.
Workflow
- Identify the requested judgment, concept, audience, available sources, and any explicit scope extension. Reuse conversation context; ask only for a missing decision that changes the assessment. Do not ask for experimental materials merely to start idea review.
- Load
references/strict-idea-review.mdfor report selection and assessment, including qualitative judgments. Normalize problem → gap → insight → mechanism; keep experimental planning outside default intake. - Ground decisive novelty claims through public-safe retrieval under
../ccf-common/references/privacy-and-evidence.md, unless browsing is forbidden. Reuse prior verified sources and record searched, partially searched, supplied-only, or unsearched coverage. Inspect relevant primary-source content before claiming overlap. - Assess distinct conceptual perspectives using
references/expert-panel.md; combine duplicate issues under stable IDs. Experiment reviewers are optional for a requested extension. Use independent calls only if permitted and useful, and label single-agent perspectives honestly. - For standard scoring, load
references/rubric.md,references/calibration.md, and../ccf-common/references/review-output-standards.md. Use the six conceptual dimensions and assessed-weight coverage. Honor no-score requests with qualitative judgments; low confidence is not a low score. - Distinguish decisive conceptual flaws from repairable gaps and unanswered questions. Compare multiple ideas under a common scope and rubric. Re-review changed assumptions and unresolved concerns without imposing new experiment criteria.
- Deliver the detailed report from
strict-idea-review.mdby default; use its brief version only for an explicit brevity request or restrictive user format. Put requested optimization or experiment work in its own authorized deliverable.
What ships with it
6 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.
- 5d ago Changed 1481214434cc
- 6d ago Changed · -81 lines · -4 tokens per session 821485f229cb
- 13d ago First seen · 135 lines · 102 tokens per session scan A 61d646d87e4b
ccf-idea-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository mikubaka88/CCFA-Skills (2,422 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 98 tokens to every session and 1,147 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
instrument-data-to-allotrope
Convert laboratory instrument output files (PDF, CSV, Excel, TXT) to Allotrope Simple Model (ASM) JSON format or flattened 2D CSV. Use this skill when scientists need to standardize instrument data for LIMS systems, data lakes, or downstream analysis. Supports auto-detection of instrument types. Outputs include full…
matlab
Build, review, migrate, and safely plan MATLAB or GNU Octave numerical workflows, including arrays, tabular/time data, tests, projects, graphics, MAT files, and explicit Python interoperability.
exploratory-data-analysis
Perform bounded, local exploratory analysis of explicitly supported scientific files. Use for redacted CSV/TSV/JSON profiles; optional NumPy, HDF5, FASTA/FASTQ, and basic image metadata inspection; missingness/leakage audits; outlier and transformation sensitivity; and rigorous EDA report scaffolds. Other domain…
phylogenetics
Build and analyze phylogenetic trees using MAFFT (multiple alignment), IQ-TREE 2 (maximum likelihood), and FastTree (fast NJ/ML). Visualize with ETE3 or FigTree. For evolutionary analysis, microbial genomics, viral phylodynamics, protein family analysis, and molecular clock studies.
research-engineer
An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.
mapping-to-snomed
Maps clinical concept spans extracted by OpenMed to SNOMED CT concepts through a USER-SUPPLIED terminology server (the user's own Ontoserver, Snowstorm, or UMLS/UTS), never a bundled vocabulary. Use when the user wants to code findings, disorders, procedures, body structures, or substances to SNOMED CT, run an ECL…