Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pedrohcgs/Claude-Mininpx agentmods add skills/pedrohcgs/claude-mini/review-paperWrote 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-mini/review-paper)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pedrohcgs/claude-mini/review-paper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pedrohcgs/claude-mini/review-paper/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-mini/review-paper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pedrohcgs/claude-mini/review-paper.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 | $0.00102 | $0.04617 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00041 | $0.01847 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00923 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00462 |
Grade A, and why
review-paper 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 2mo 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 — 400 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Manuscript Review
Produce a thorough, constructive review of an academic manuscript — the kind of report a top-journal referee would write.
Which review skill do I want?
/review-paper(this skill) — single comprehensive report, optional--adversarialcritic-fixer loop, or--peer <journal>simulated peer-review pipeline. Best for most drafts./seven-pass-review— seven independent lenses in parallel (abstract, intro, methods, results, robustness, prose, citations) then synthesized. Heavier (7× token cost). Best for submission-ready drafts or R&R stage where you need maximum coverage./respond-to-referees— if you already have referee comments and need a response document, not another review./slide-excellence— for lecture slides, not papers.
Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to a paper (.tex, .pdf, or .qmd), or a filename in master_supporting_docs/. Optional flags:
--adversarial— critic-fixer loop (max 5 rounds).--peer <JOURNAL>— simulated peer review pipeline calibrated to<JOURNAL>(see.claude/references/journal-profiles.mdfor available short names).--r2/--r3— R&R continuation mode (requires--peer). Reloads prior round, classifies concerns Resolved / Partial / Not addressed.--stress— hostile-editor stress test (requires--peer). Forces SKEPTIC dispositions, doubles critical peeves.--no-novelty-check— skip editor's WebSearch novelty probe (default is ON).--no-cross-artifact— skip auto-invocation of/review-r+/audit-reproducibilityon referenced scripts.
Already received referee comments? Use
/respond-to-refereesinstead. That skill cross-references each referee concern against the revised manuscript and drafts a complete response document.
Modes
Default mode (single-pass)
One comprehensive review report. Fast, low token cost, suitable for early drafts where the author wants feedback and will iterate manually.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 400 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 00b8bcd38760
review-paper is a skill published in the GitHub repository pedrohcgs/Claude-Mini (12 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 102 tokens to every session and 4,617 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
review-paper compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| review-paperpedrohcgs/Claude-Mini | Skill | 12 | 6mo ago | MIT | A | 102 | Claude Code |
| imagegenopenai/codex | Skill | 134k | today | Apache-2.0 | A | 113 | Codex |
| playwright-climicrosoft/playwright | Skill | 99k | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 19 | Claude Code |
| local-ai-agentsmicrosoft/ai-agents-for-beginners | Skill | 79k | 4d ago | MIT | A | 200 | Claude Code, Codex |
| systematic-debuggingobra/superpowers | Skill | 314k | 3d ago | MIT | A | 21 | Claude Code |
| next-cache-components-adoptionvercel/next.js | Skill | 143k | yesterday | MIT | A | 95 | Claude Code |
| next-partial-prefetching-adoptionvercel/next.js | Skill | 143k | yesterday | MIT | A | 103 | Claude Code |