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 raja21068/AutoResearch --skill kill-argumentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/raja21068/AutoResearchWrote 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/raja21068/autoresearch/kill-argument)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/raja21068/autoresearch/kill-argument"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/raja21068/autoresearch/kill-argument/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/raja21068/autoresearch/kill-argument"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/raja21068/autoresearch/kill-argument.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 | $0.00088 | $0.05018 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00044 | $0.02509 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.01004 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00502 |
Grade A, and why
kill-argument 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 8d 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to kill-argument — 87 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 387 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Kill Argument Exercise: Adversarial Attack-Defense Review
Stress-test the headline claims of a paper against the strongest possible rejection argument: $ARGUMENTS
Why This Exists
Standard score-based reviews (/peer-review, /research-review, /auto-paper-improvement-loop) tend to produce balanced weakness lists. Each weakness gets ~equal attention, ranked CRITICAL > MAJOR > MINOR. Empirically, this misses one specific failure mode: the single most damaging argument a reviewer would write in a rejection paragraph — the one sentence that, if a senior area chair reads it, kills the paper.
A balanced reviewer might list "scope-overclaim risk" as MAJOR alongside 3-5 other MAJORs, never quite committing. An adversarial reviewer must commit: their entire job is to convince the area chair to reject in 200 words.
This skill runs that adversarial pass deliberately, then forces a second fresh reviewer to defend point-by-point, classify each rejection as already-fixed / partially-fixed / still-unresolved, and surface what's actually load-bearing.
Empirical motivation: in a real submission run, after several rounds of standard improvement (score 7-8/10), the kill-argument exercise surfaced framing weaknesses that no prior review caught (e.g., a setting being mostly conditional rather than truly general, or a baseline being irrelevant to real systems). Author rebuttal forced explicit scope qualifications in abstract and discussion that weren't visible from the score-based reviews alone.
How This Differs From Other Review Skills
| Skill | What it asks the reviewer | Output |
|---|---|---|
/peer-review |
"Score this paper, list weaknesses by severity" | balanced weakness list |
/research-review |
"Deep technical review of methods + claims" | structured deep critique |
/proof-checker |
"Is this theorem actually proved?" | per-step proof obligation audit |
/paper-claim-audit |
"Does the paper report numbers truthfully?" | per-claim evidence verification |
/citation-audit |
"Are citations real and used in correct context?" | per-entry KEEP/FIX/REPLACE/REMOVE |
/kill-argument |
"Write the single strongest rejection paragraph; then defend it." | attack memo + per-point defense + unresolved surfaced |
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 387 lines · 88 tokens per session scan A b0a23bb1e766
kill-argument is a skill published in the GitHub repository raja21068/AutoResearch (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 88 tokens to every session and 5,018 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to kill-argument, differing in 87 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
literature-review-agent
Step 3 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Execute the literature search strategy from outline.json — discover candidate papers via web search, verify them through Semantic Scholar (Levenshtein > 70 fuzzy title match, temporal cutoff, dedup by paperId), cross-corroborate against Crossref + OpenAlex to…
agent-research-aggregator
Pre-pipeline aggregator that scans AI agent cache directories (.claude, .cursor, .antigravity, .openclaw) or any user-specified directory for experimentation logs, extracts insights and numeric results, and formats them as PaperOrchestra-ready inputs (idea.md + experimentallog.md). TRIGGER when the user says…
content-refinement-agent
Step 5 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Iteratively refine drafts/paper.tex by simulating peer review and applying targeted revisions, with strict accept/revert halt rules, deterministic 0-100 decision bands (Accept/Minor/Major/Reject) that drive a target-met early stop, and a Devil's Advocate…
paper-orchestra
Orchestrate the full PaperOrchestra (Song et al., 2026, arXiv:2604.05018) five-agent pipeline to turn unstructured research materials (idea, experimental log, LaTeX template, conference guidelines, optional figures) into a submission-ready LaTeX manuscript and compiled PDF. TRIGGER when the user asks to "write a paper…
section-writing-agent
Step 4 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). ONE single multimodal LLM call that drafts the remaining paper sections (Abstract, Methodology, Experiments, Conclusion), extracts numeric values from experimentallog.md into LaTeX booktabs tables, splices the generated figures from Step 2, and merges…
plotting-agent
Step 2 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Execute the visualization plan from outline.json — render plots and conceptual diagrams from experimentallog.md and idea.md, optionally refine via VLM critique loop, and produce context-aware captions. Runs in parallel with the literature-review-agent. TRIGGER…