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 panjose/Co-Scientist --skill hypothesis-deep-verificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/panjose/Co-ScientistWrote 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/panjose/co-scientist/hypothesis-deep-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/panjose/co-scientist/hypothesis-deep-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/panjose/co-scientist/hypothesis-deep-verification/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/panjose/co-scientist/hypothesis-deep-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/panjose/co-scientist/hypothesis-deep-verification.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 | $0.00019 | $0.01190 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00595 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00238 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00119 |
Grade A, and why
hypothesis-deep-verification 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 9d 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 — 87 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
hypothesis-deep-verification
Goal:
- Run the assumption decomposition and deep verification review for a hypothesis.
Inputs:
research_plan/RESEARCH_PLAN.jsonhypotheses/<id>/HYPOTHESIS.jsonliterature/queries/<query_id>/EVIDENCE_BUNDLE.jsonas anEvidenceBundleContractwhen external evidence is needed to judge a core assumption- optional prior review artifacts for calibration
Outputs:
hypotheses/<id>/REVIEW/DEEP_VERIFICATION.jsonliterature/queries/<query_id>/*search bridge artifacts when a new evidence query is required
Context Loading:
- Open
skills/shared-references/schema-index.md. - Open
skills/shared-references/literature-search-contract.md. - Open
skills/shared-references/codex-reviewer-routing.mdbefore using any optional Codex reviewer subagent route. - Read
packages/agent_contracts/literature.pybefore building or consuming search bridge artifacts. - Read
research_plan/RESEARCH_PLAN.jsonfor the active goal and boundaries. - Read
hypotheses/<id>/HYPOTHESIS.json. - If previous review artifacts exist, use them to focus decomposition on already-suspect links, but still perform an independent structural check.
Execution Prompt Contract:
- System Intent:
- You are the structural verification layer for one hypothesis.
- Required Reasoning Focus:
- Decompose the hypothesis into core assumptions.
- Break each assumption into independently judgeable sub-assumptions where useful.
- For assumptions that depend on external literature support, call
tools.search_literature(run_dir, request)or consume an existing matching evidence bundle before marking the link as supported. - If Codex reviewer subagents are available and explicitly useful for structural verification, they may inspect the same canonical artifacts, but the main thread must still validate and persist the canonical
DEEP_VERIFICATION.json. - If subagents are unavailable, execute the same verification contract in the main thread and record
reviewerRoute = local_main_threadwhen a reviewer route trace is written. - Read
retrieval_metadata.statusbefore marking any evidence-dependent assumption as externally supported. - Mark which links appear well-supported by the evidence bundle, speculative but plausible, unsupported because retrieval was blocked, or likely incorrect.
- If
retrieval_metadata.statusispartial, mark externally supported links as limited by partial retrieval rather than fully literature-confirmed. - Surface flaws in reasoning chains, hidden assumptions, or logically weak transitions.
- Do Not Do:
- Do not collapse the whole hypothesis into one coarse verdict.
- Do not invent additional research goals or evaluation criteria.
- Do not produce deep verification as unstructured prose.
- Do not invent papers, DOIs, arXiv IDs, venues, citation counts, abstracts, or literature claims not present in the evidence bundle.
- Do not use model memory as a substitute for search bridge artifacts.
- Do not let a reviewer subagent write deterministic mechanics artifacts or bypass schema validation.
- Review Quality Floor:
- A
status = completeddeep verification review must include at least one concrete assumption with a non-empty correctness rationale. - Assumptions must decompose the hypothesis mechanism or validation path; do not write generic entries such as
mechanism is plausibleorneeds validation. - Do not use placeholder verification phrases such as
Viable evolved hypothesis,Refined from parent, orvalidated by future experimentsas substantive review content. - If an assumption depends on literature evidence, preserve the linked evidence limitation or retrieval status rather than inventing support.
- A
- Output Shape:
- Produce the exact
DeepVerificationReviewContractfrompackages/agent_contracts/review.py. - Keep statements and correctness rationales concise.
- Produce the exact
Execution Steps:
- Open
skills/shared-references/schema-index.md,skills/shared-references/literature-search-contract.md, andskills/shared-references/codex-reviewer-routing.md, then readpackages/agent_contracts/review.pyandpackages/agent_contracts/literature.pybefore writingDEEP_VERIFICATION.json, reviewer traces, or consuming search bridge artifacts. - Read the research plan and hypothesis.
- Extract the core assumptions behind the mechanism or validation path.
- For assumptions whose correctness depends on external literature, build a focused
SearchRequestContractand calltools.search_literature(run_dir, request)unless a matching evidence bundle already exists. - If retrieval is
blocked, preserve that uncertainty in the affected assumption correctness rationales instead of claiming external support. - If retrieval is
partial, preserve that limitation in the affected assumption correctness rationales instead of claiming comprehensive external support. - Decompose assumptions where necessary.
- Evaluate each assumption or sub-assumption.
- Write
hypotheses/<id>/REVIEW/DEEP_VERIFICATION.json. - Validate before declaring completion.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 87 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 9fa05ca4a61e
hypothesis-deep-verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository panjose/Co-Scientist (5 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 1,190 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
figure-style
Publication-grade correctness and legibility rules for final-deliverable scientific figures, not exploratory plots. Use for a figure that will ship in a report, paper, export, or kept artifact. Covers data fidelity, label economy, color threading, chart choice, layout, and render-then-verify QA without imposing a…
remote-compute-ssh
Evaluate and use SSH Remote Compute before choosing where to run GPU, high-memory, parallel, batch, model-inference, bioinformatics, or other long-running scientific work; supports short remote commands and asynchronous jobs with automatic harvest and analysis.
scvi-tools
Probabilistic single-cell RNA-seq with scvi-tools — scVI for a batch-corrected latent space, scANVI for semi-supervised label transfer, and Bayesian differential expression. Reach for this skill to integrate scRNA-seq batches, embed cells for clustering, transfer annotations from a reference onto a query, or score…
literature-review
Find, verify, and synthesize scientific literature — from "what's the seminal paper for X" through full multi-source reviews. Covers grounding claims in real retrieved sources, avoiding fabricated citations, handling retractions, and calibrating confidence to evidence strength.
openfold3
Structure prediction using OpenFold3, an open-weights PyTorch reproduction of AlphaFold3 from the AlQuraishi Lab. Use this skill when predicting protein/nucleic-acid/ligand complex structures with an Apache-2.0-licensed AF3 reimplementation.
self-awareness
Inspect Open Science's JavaScript control REPL, discover managed Project files, Sessions, and Agent Frames, and safely feature-gate host. calls with host.capabilities(). Use when an Agent needs to discover available host APIs, locate an Artifact or Upload Version, diagnose a Session, or read a Frame transcript in the…