claude-code-my-workflow is a forkable setup for using Claude Code to produce and review academic papers, slides, data analyses, and replication packages. Researchers use its agents, skills, rules, hooks, and quality checks to coordinate these tasks and verify their results. The catalogue entries define the reusable workflow components for Claude Code.
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 pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow --skill credible-claimsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflowWrote 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/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/credible-claims)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/credible-claims"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/credible-claims/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/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/credible-claims"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow/credible-claims.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 | $0.00066 | $0.00891 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00033 | $0.00445 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00178 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
credible-claims 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 — 51 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Credible claims: the brief before, the record after
Cheaper generation increases demand for scarce validation. The fix is two lightweight artifacts: a research brief that constrains what the system may do, and a claim record that constrains what may be reported. Applies to agents, workflows, sims, proof patches, data construction — anything delegated.
Three standing rules
- Delegate only after inputs, boundaries, and completion criteria are clear. No open-ended "make it better" runs.
- Require evidence, not confident conclusions. Every delegated task returns inspectable evidence: locations, diffs, diagnostics, counts, failing cases, logs — never just "done/looks fine."
- Escalate anything that changes the economic object, the identifying assumptions, the inferential procedure, or the reporting language. Those decisions return to the researcher (the user), always. A standing user ruling counts as a returned decision; record it.
The research brief (before execution)
One short block, written before launching the work:
- Question / target: what exactly is being estimated, proved, built.
- Completion: what counts as done; what results would not answer the question.
- Prohibited substitutions: what the system may not silently change (estimand, sample, assumptions, statement of a theorem, benchmark spec).
- Known failure modes: what tends to go wrong here; the checks matched to each.
- Required evidence: what must come back (numbers, locations, diffs, diagnostics).
- Escalation triggers: which findings/decisions must return to the user before proceeding.
- Blocked-route rule: a route that depends on unavailable data, an unsupported assumption, or an unproved result is marked blocked — a scientific outcome, not an instruction to search until a favorable answer appears.
The claim record (during/after execution)
For each claim the work will support:
- Support: which data/analysis/proof supports it (with locations).
- Changes after seeing results: anything modified after outcomes were visible, and why (diagnostic-triggered fix vs favorable switch — keep these distinguishable).
- Unresolved: checks that remain open, and how they constrain the language.
- Decision: who decided what could be reported (user ruling vs assistant default).
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 · 51 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A 19cab4a6f7b5
credible-claims is a skill published in the GitHub repository pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow (1,569 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 891 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
paper-workflow
A staged workflow for producing an evidence-based economics or social-science research paper, from choosing a topic through submission. It coordinates existing tools and analysis options, including Python, Stata, and R.
r-econometrics
Run IV, DiD, and RDD analyses in R with proper diagnostics.
econ-management-paper-polish
A writing and editing guide for papers in economics, management, finance, accounting, marketing, information systems, public administration, and related fields.
did-causal
Use this Skill when the user needs to estimate causal treatment effects using difference-in-differences (DID) designs: two-way fixed effects (TWFE) regression, parallel trends pre-testing, Callaway-Sant'Anna staggered adoption estimator, and Goodman-Bacon decomposition. Covers both Python (linearmodels) and R (did…
fin-paper-convert
Compile LaTeX to PDF and convert to target journal format.
fin-paper-figure
Generate academic-quality figures (>=300 DPI) for economics and finance papers.