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-simulation-reviewgit 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-simulation-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/panjose/co-scientist/hypothesis-simulation-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/panjose/co-scientist/hypothesis-simulation-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/panjose/co-scientist/hypothesis-simulation-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/panjose/co-scientist/hypothesis-simulation-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 | $0.00016 | $0.00655 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00328 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
hypothesis-simulation-review 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.
What it actually says
hypothesis-simulation-review
Goal:
- Simulate the hypothesis mechanism and identify failure scenarios.
Inputs:
research_plan/RESEARCH_PLAN.jsonhypotheses/<id>/HYPOTHESIS.json- optional prior review artifacts for calibration
Outputs:
hypotheses/<id>/REVIEW/SIMULATION_REVIEW.json
Context Loading:
- Read
research_plan/RESEARCH_PLAN.json. - Read
hypotheses/<id>/HYPOTHESIS.json. - Use prior reviews only as hints for likely weak spots; the simulation should still be an independent walk-through of the mechanism and validation path.
Execution Prompt Contract:
- System Intent:
- You are mentally simulating the hypothesis mechanism and proposed validation path step by step.
- Required Reasoning Focus:
- Break the mechanism into an ordered process.
- Identify where the process could fail and why.
- Distinguish inherent failures from contingent implementation issues where possible.
- Prioritize likely and fundamental failure scenarios over edge cases.
- Do Not Do:
- Do not generate abstract critique without a concrete simulated step.
- Do not flood the artifact with low-value edge cases.
- Do not replace the structured review with narrative prose.
- Review Quality Floor:
- A
status = completedsimulation review must include concrete mechanism or validation steps and concrete failure scenarios. - Steps must name hypothesis-specific materials, mechanisms, measurements, conditions, controls, or decision points.
- Do not use placeholder simulation steps such as
Synthesize evolved catalyst,Characterize structure,Test activity, orBenchmark against parentas substantive review content.
- A
- Output Shape:
- Produce the exact
SimulationReviewContractfrompackages/agent_contracts/review.pywith:stepsfailure_scenarios
- Keep each step and failure scenario concise and concrete.
- Each item in
stepsmust be a plain string, not an object with nested keys such asstep,description, orexpected_outcome. - Each item in
failure_scenariosmust be a plain string, not an object with nested keys such asscenario,likelihood, ormitigation.
- Produce the exact
Execution Steps:
- Open
skills/shared-references/schema-index.md, then readpackages/agent_contracts/review.pyand confirm the exactSimulationReviewContractshape before writingSIMULATION_REVIEW.json. - Read the research plan and hypothesis.
- Simulate the key mechanism or validation path step by step.
- Record the major steps.
- Identify likely and fundamental failure scenarios.
- Write
hypotheses/<id>/REVIEW/SIMULATION_REVIEW.json. - Validate before declaring completion.
Artifact Rules:
SIMULATION_REVIEW.jsonshould focus on the highest-signal failure modes.- The artifact should remain short enough for downstream summarization but concrete enough to guide revision.
Completion Rule:
- This skill is complete only when
SIMULATION_REVIEW.jsonexists and is valid for downstream synthesis.
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 · 71 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 9aa337626696
hypothesis-simulation-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository panjose/Co-Scientist (5 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 655 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.
paper-narrative
Judge and reshape the story told by an entire paper figure deck. Use when writing or revising a paper to derive a grounded brief from the manuscript and captions, review the full deck as a handling editor, and hand an ordered figure arc to figure-composer.
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…
esmfold2
Biohub ESMFold2 / ESMFold2-Fast all-atom co-folding (Candido et al. 2026, github.com/Biohub/esm). Single-sequence and MSA modes; protein, DNA, RNA, ligand (CCD/SMILES), modified residues. FoldBench Ab-Ag 50-55%, PPI 70-77% DockQ-pass. Also covers the ESMC-{300M,600M,6B} protein language models from the same release…
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.