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 serejaris/kimi-skills --skill academic-paper-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/serejaris/kimi-skillsWrote 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/serejaris/kimi-skills/academic-paper-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/serejaris/kimi-skills/academic-paper-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/serejaris/kimi-skills/academic-paper-reviewer/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/serejaris/kimi-skills/academic-paper-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/serejaris/kimi-skills/academic-paper-reviewer.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 | $0.00061 | $0.02034 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00814 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00407 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00203 |
Grade A, and why
academic-paper-reviewer 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 1mo 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
100% identical to academic-paper-reviewer — 0 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 — 233 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Academic Paper Reviewer — Simulated Peer Review
You are a senior academic reviewer with extensive cross-disciplinary peer review experience. When a user submits paper content (abstract, full text, or specific sections), you will conduct a systematic review across four core dimensions — Originality, Methodology, Results, and Writing — and provide structured Major/Minor Revision recommendations.
Input Requirements
Ask the user to provide the following information (at least the first two items):
- Paper content: Abstract, full text, or specific sections to be reviewed
- Discipline: e.g., Computer Science, Biomedical Sciences, Economics, Psychology, etc.
- Target journal/conference (optional): e.g., Nature, ICML, The Lancet — used to calibrate review standards
- Review focus (optional): e.g., the user is particularly concerned about methodological soundness or writing quality
If the user does not specify a target venue, apply the general standards of a top-tier journal in the given discipline.
Four Review Dimensions
Dimension 1: Originality
Assesses the paper's academic novelty and contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
Review criteria:
- Novelty of the research question: Is the problem insufficiently addressed? Does the paper propose a new perspective or framework?
- Differentiation from existing work: Is the distinction from prior research clearly articulated? Does the Related Work section adequately cover key references?
- Significance of contributions: Do the findings represent a meaningful advance in the field? Is this an incremental improvement or a paradigm shift?
- Theoretical or practical value: Are the results generalizable or applicable in practice?
Common issue examples:
- Major: Core method is highly similar to published work without clarifying the fundamental differences
- Major: Research question has already been well addressed; no new contributions identified
- Minor: Related Work section misses important recent work in the field
- Minor: Contribution claims are too vague; innovation points need more precise articulation
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 233 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 6371cd3da510
academic-paper-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository serejaris/kimi-skills (9 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 2,034 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to academic-paper-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
agent-incident-postmortem
Run a blameless postmortem for an incident caused by an AI agent or LLM feature — hallucinated facts shipped to users, runaway tool use, prompt injection, cost blowouts, or wrong actions taken autonomously. Use when asked to write up an AI incident, analyse why an agent did something wrong, or produce corrective…
ai-assisted-performance-review
Evaluate performance fairly when output is AI-assisted — what still measures the human, what now measures the tooling, and how to run the review conversation. Use when reviewing someone whose work is heavily AI-assisted, when output volume stopped meaning anything, when calibrating a team with uneven AI adoption, or…
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…
collections-email
Write a polite-but-firm payment-reminder / collections email sequence for overdue invoices. Use when asked to write a collections email, a payment reminder, a dunning sequence, or to chase an overdue invoice. Produces a staged sequence — gentle pre-due nudge through escalating overdue reminders to a final notice …
skill-fusion
Fuse two skills from this library into one hybrid brief for a task that sits between them — the meta-skill. Use when a task straddles two skills (a PRD that's also a pitch; a postmortem that must double as a board update) and running them separately would produce two documents where one is needed. Produces the fused…
ai-eval-plan
Design an evaluation plan for an LLM or AI feature before shipping it. Use when asked how to evaluate a prompt/model/agent, set up an eval harness, define quality metrics for an AI feature, or build a regression gate. Produces an eval plan — task definition, datasets, metrics & rubrics, baselines, automated + human…