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 Rezenders/scientific_writing_agent --skill section-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Rezenders/scientific_writing_agentWrote 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/rezenders/scientific_writing_agent/section-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rezenders/scientific_writing_agent/section-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rezenders/scientific_writing_agent/section-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/rezenders/scientific_writing_agent/section-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rezenders/scientific_writing_agent/section-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 | $0.00030 | $0.00508 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00254 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00102 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00051 |
Grade A, and why
section-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Section Review
Section-level multi-agent review. Different from /technical-paragraph-rewrite (which works at paragraph level and produces rewrite suggestions): this skill audits a full section for scientific quality and manuscript-wide consistency, and reports findings without modifying anything.
When to Use
- After rewriting a full section
- Before handing a section to a co-author
- As part of
/pre-submissionfor high-risk sections - When you suspect a section has drifted from the rest of the paper
Inputs Required
Tell Claude:
- Target section: the file and section name/heading
- Neighbouring sections: what comes immediately before and after (file names or section names)
- Focus (optional): any specific concerns (e.g. "check that the contributions still match", "verify the notation is consistent with Section 2")
Workflow
Phase 1 — Scientific Review
Invoke scientific-paper-reviewer with:
- The full target section text
- The neighbouring section context (preceding and following)
Ask: "Review this section across all five dimensions: local clarity, redundancy, claim precision, paragraph flow, and alignment with neighbouring sections. Flag critical issues first."
Phase 2 — Consistency Audit
Invoke consistency-auditor targeted at the section:
Ask: "Audit this section against the rest of the manuscript for: terminology drift, acronym consistency, notation mismatches, and contribution-statement alignment. Report findings with file:line evidence from both the section and the conflicting location."
Phase 3 — Unified Report
Combine findings from both phases into a single report:
## Section Review: [Section Name]
### Scientific Quality
[Findings from Phase 1 — grouped by dimension]
### Manuscript Consistency
[Findings from Phase 2 — grouped by issue type]
### Priority Actions
1. [Most urgent issue]
2. ...
### Verdict
READY / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR ISSUES
Constraints
- Do not edit any files. Report only.
- Do not propose rewrites inline — for rewrite suggestions, use
/technical-paragraph-rewriteon specific paragraphs after this review. - If neighbouring sections are not provided, note that alignment cannot be fully assessed.
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 · 70 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A d6d7e77dc9a9
section-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Rezenders/scientific_writing_agent (11 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 508 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
instrument-data-to-allotrope
Convert laboratory instrument output files (PDF, CSV, Excel, TXT) to Allotrope Simple Model (ASM) JSON format or flattened 2D CSV. Use this skill when scientists need to standardize instrument data for LIMS systems, data lakes, or downstream analysis. Supports auto-detection of instrument types. Outputs include full…
exploratory-data-analysis
Perform bounded, local exploratory analysis of explicitly supported scientific files. Use for redacted CSV/TSV/JSON profiles; optional NumPy, HDF5, FASTA/FASTQ, and basic image metadata inspection; missingness/leakage audits; outlier and transformation sensitivity; and rigorous EDA report scaffolds. Other domain…
matlab
Build, review, migrate, and safely plan MATLAB or GNU Octave numerical workflows, including arrays, tabular/time data, tests, projects, graphics, MAT files, and explicit Python interoperability.
phylogenetics
Build and analyze phylogenetic trees using MAFFT (multiple alignment), IQ-TREE 2 (maximum likelihood), and FastTree (fast NJ/ML). Visualize with ETE3 or FigTree. For evolutionary analysis, microbial genomics, viral phylodynamics, protein family analysis, and molecular clock studies.
research-engineer
An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.
mapping-to-snomed
Maps clinical concept spans extracted by OpenMed to SNOMED CT concepts through a USER-SUPPLIED terminology server (the user's own Ontoserver, Snowstorm, or UMLS/UTS), never a bundled vocabulary. Use when the user wants to code findings, disorders, procedures, body structures, or substances to SNOMED CT, run an ECL…