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 pengyizhou/claude-plugins --skill reviewing-my-papergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pengyizhou/claude-pluginsWrote 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/pengyizhou/claude-plugins/reviewing-my-paper)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pengyizhou/claude-plugins/reviewing-my-paper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pengyizhou/claude-plugins/reviewing-my-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/pengyizhou/claude-plugins/reviewing-my-paper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pengyizhou/claude-plugins/reviewing-my-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 | $0.00045 | $0.02814 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01407 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00563 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00281 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-my-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 11d 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 — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing My Paper
Overview
A multi-lens review pipeline for the user's own academic paper that ends in an annotated PDF (highlights + sticky notes), not just prose feedback. It layers several independent lenses and — critically — adversarially verifies its own findings before presenting them, because a single review pass overstates claims and misses whole categories (citation existence, English discourse flow, figure–text consistency, copy-edit).
Core principle: every finding must be located (page + anchor) and verified before it reaches the PDF. Findings you can't substantiate get dropped or downgraded.
When to Use
- "Review / critique / give feedback on my paper", "mark up my PDF", "proofread my manuscript".
- The artifact is the user's own paper (be a constructive reviewer, not a gatekeeper).
- NOT for reviewing someone else's paper for a venue (use
academic-research-skills:academic-paper-reviewerdirectly) or writing a new paper (academic-research-skills:academic-paper).
Pipeline
Run these in order. Lenses 3–7 are independent → dispatch them as parallel subagents, each writing its results to a file so the annotation step can consume them.
| # | Phase | How |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Extract text | PyMuPDF (see Environment). Save to paper_text.txt with page markers. Large PDFs: don't try to Read all pages. |
| 1 | Field analysis | Identify discipline, method type, and target venue to calibrate standards. |
| 2 | Multi-perspective review | Invoke academic-research-skills:academic-paper-reviewer (EIC + 3 reviewers + Devil's Advocate + synthesis). |
| 3 | Citation hallucination check | Fan out parallel agents over every reference (~8 each). Each verifies existence + metadata via WebSearch against DOI / ACL Anthology / OpenReview / proceedings — never from memory. Classify VERIFIED / SUSPECT / NOT_FOUND with the 5-type taxonomy (TF/PAC/IH/PH/SH). Mirrors academic-research-skills:academic-pipeline integrity_verification_agent. |
| 4 | Argument / logical flow | Motivation→method→claim chain, claim-evidence alignment, overclaims, non-sequiturs. |
| 5 | Academic-English discourse & language precision | Two levels, both REQUIRED. Discourse: general→specific, topic-sentence-first paragraphs, given-before-new cohesion, CARS intro moves, section-opener signposting, cross-section consistency. Language precision (the highest-value differentiator — baseline reviewers and the discourse pass both skip it): every coined term/jargon defined on first use; one concept = one name across title/abstract/body/index terms; no mechanism restated in vaguer terms or 3+ jargon stacks; flag synonym churn, key-term over-repetition, vague hedges, and forward-references. Run the Language & Terminology Audit below — do not stop at discourse-level flow. |
| 6 | Figure & table review | Render every figure to an image and look — text extraction (Lens 0) cannot see figures, so they get silently skipped. Three layers: (a) mismatch — every number/label/unit/class-name/symbol in a figure matches the text, tables, and body notation; (b) claim justification — does the figure actually support the claim it is cited for (a motivation figure should embody the method's core idea; a results figure should show the effect/trend/significance the text asserts; a framework figure should match the pipeline step-for-step)?; (c) design & improvement cues — standalone readability, clutter/redundancy, print/grayscale legibility, missing dispersion/CIs/significance. Give concrete improvement cues, not just diagnoses. See Figure & Table Review. |
| 7 | Grammar / copy-edit | Genuine prose errors only. Tell the agent to ignore PDF-extraction artifacts (mid-word hyphenation, mangled math/symbols, spaced numerals like "15 696"). |
| 8 | Adversarial self-verification | Before finalizing: re-check substantive claims, especially external facts (SOTA numbers, prior-art priority, "missing baseline X"), with refute-style subagents. Downgrade or drop anything you can't substantiate. Check disclosed caveats before calling a number an "inconsistency". |
| 9 | Annotate the PDF | Build a findings JSON, run annotate_pdf.py (see Tool). Color = severity. |
| 10 | Deliver | Send the annotated PDF + a short summary. Offer a consolidated P0/P1/P2 revision plan. |
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 110 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 237a817ae1f9
reviewing-my-paper is a skill published in the GitHub repository pengyizhou/claude-plugins (4 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 2,814 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
pydicom
Use pydicom to read, inspect, write, transform, and safely preflight local DICOM datasets and pixel data. Applies to DICOM metadata, transfer syntaxes, compression plugins, frames, private elements, JSON, and bounded de-identification review.
foundry-hosted-agent-validation
Step-by-step process for validating a Python Foundry hosted agent sample (under python/samples/04-hosting/foundry-hosted-agents/) end to end — running it locally (native runtime and azd ai agent run) and after deploying it to an Azure AI Foundry project with azd. Use this when asked to validate a hosted agent sample.
skill-doc-delivery
Convert markdown to DOCX, PPTX, XLSX, PDF office documents — use when you need exportable deliverables.
pdf-extract-create-workflow
Complete PDF lifecycle: download, extract, and generate structured documents with reportlab.
document-direct-python
Use direct Python execution for reliable document creation including spreadsheets, PDFs, and structured reports.
parse-document
Convert a PDF, scan, image of a page, or office file to clean markdown through the connected Superlinked MCP edge, so the source document is not read into model context directly. Use when the user asks to read, parse, OCR, extract from, summarize, or answer questions about a document.