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 roomi-fields/paper-trail --skill sota-auditorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/roomi-fields/paper-trailWrote 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/roomi-fields/paper-trail/sota-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/roomi-fields/paper-trail/sota-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/roomi-fields/paper-trail/sota-auditor/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/roomi-fields/paper-trail/sota-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/roomi-fields/paper-trail/sota-auditor.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 | $0.00195 | $0.02776 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00097 | $0.01388 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00555 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00278 |
Grade A, and why
sota-auditor 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 — 243 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill : SOTA Auditor
Why this skill exists
Citation hallucinations in academic publications (fabricated quotes, inverted attributions, misidentified authors) are the failure mode this plugin exists to prevent. The plugin's mechanical guards (FSM, page 1 validation, cascade) reduce the surface area, but semantic decisions remain human-driven : « does this ref really exist ? Is this claim really in this paper ? Is this the right author ? »
sota-auditor is the role that makes those decisions. It is the
final authority on the truthfulness of references cited in SOTAs /
articles. It can :
- Confirm a citation (transition
page1_validated → sota_cited_confirmed) - Retract a fabrication (transition
* → retractedwith reason) - Correct an attribution (modify the SOTA + the ref frontmatter)
- Rollback a technical transition by
pdf-cascadeif a homonymy was missed
The supreme rule
For each problematic reference, the decision is binary :
- VRAI → confirm (correct attribution if needed), transition to
sota_cited_confirmedonce the specific claim has been validated - HALLUCINATION → transition to
retractedwith mandatory WebSearch documenting the absence (≥ 2 independent sources confirming inexistence or error), then purge the citation from the SOTA(s) where it appears
No grey zone. No "roughly correct that we can rephrase". No "keep it just in case". An unverifiable citation is a research debt that eventually explodes.
When to activate
- The user asks for an audit of a SOTA or article bibliography
pipeline doctorreports invariant violations on cited refspdf-cascadereturnedblocked_human:title_mismatchorblocked_human:cascade_exhaustedon important refspipeline events --to retractedlists newly retracted refs- Before paper submission (pre-submission audit)
- The user mentions "vérité", "hallucination", "purger", "retraiter"
/paper-trail:audit-sotacommand is invoked
Worker B transitions the auditor can drive
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 · 243 lines · 195 tokens per session scan A 8575e26084bb
sota-auditor is a skill published in the GitHub repository roomi-fields/paper-trail (5 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 195 tokens to every session and 2,776 once invoked, about $0.0010 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
draft
Use to produce a first draft, or to revise one from an upstream verdict artifact's open-defect count, emitting a draft@1 artifact. The target node of a bounded back-edge. Single tool. Reusable standalone.
qiongli
Qiongli version: v1.17.0. Cross-platform academic research workflow for Codex, Claude / Claude Code, and CLI. Use for academic research lifecycle work: paper planning, literature review, paper reading, gap finding, study design, manuscript writing, statistics, analysis code, reproducibility, proofread, rebuttal…
x-bug2rag
A knowledge-capture tool that turns reusable bug explanations into a local RAG collection, meaning a searchable store of text that an agent can retrieve later. It records the trigger, incorrect implementation, correct implementation, and observable difference.
x-cr
A software-correctness investigation skill for finding why code behaves differently from what was expected. It uses evidence from code paths, specifications, tests, logs, and changes to assess possible causes.
x-spec2
A compact system-design guide for turning vague or cross-module requests into a small, structured specification package. It defines requirements, acceptance scenarios, module boundaries, and—when needed—data flow, state, timing, resources, or recovery design.
x-adversarial-risk
A focused adversarial review of a software specification. It tries to find small counterexamples that would expose incorrect implementations, such as invalid state changes, crashes, duplicate actions, permission mistakes, or concurrent events.