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 ShaishavMaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills --skill draft-related-workgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ShaishavMaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-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/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/draft-related-work)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/draft-related-work"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/draft-related-work/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/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/draft-related-work"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/draft-related-work.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 | $0.00205 | $0.03313 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00082 | $0.01325 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00041 | $0.00663 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00331 |
Grade A, and why
draft-related-work 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 245 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Draft Related Work
Produces a Related Work section that positions the paper — every paragraph is a cluster of actually-retrieved prior work plus an explicit delta sentence — formatted to the target venue's conventions. This is a writing skill with two hard gates:
- Anti-hallucination. A citation that was not retrieved and verified in this session does not ship.
- Anti-structural-hole. The clusters the section MUST cover are derived
from the paper's own claimed scope, never from whatever
find-papershappened to return. A retrieved-but-peripheral corpus produces an outline that positions confidently while leaving a hole exactly where the paper lives — a missing direct-competitor cluster, an absent canonical lineage, a whole expected sub-area with zero citations. That gap is found deterministically and routed back tofind-papersas a targeted second pass, not shipped as a silent author to-do.
When to use
- Drafting Related Work for a new paper, given a topic and a target venue.
- Rewriting an existing section reviewers called a "laundry list", "thin", "missing comparisons", or "unclear novelty".
- Folding newly found papers (or a reviewer's "you missed X, Y, Z") into an existing section without breaking its structure.
- NOT for finding papers (use
find-papers), reading one paper (fetch-paper), a full thematic survey (literature-review), or checking an existing bibliography only (verify-citations).
Inputs
- The paper's core claim/contributions, AND its sub-tasks/requirements (from the draft's intro/abstract, or ask). These drive the required-cluster enumeration in step 2 — without them the section can only mirror the retrieved pile.
- Target venue — a
venues/conferences/<id>.ymlprofile if one exists (itsexemplar_distributioncalibrates the section's length/breadth). - Candidate prior work: output of
find-papers/literature-review, the draft's.bib, and/or papers the user names. CONTACT_EMAILenv var for the metadata script (prompts if unset).
What ships with it
6 files 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 · 245 lines · 205 tokens per session scan A becbca5b0b66
draft-related-work is a skill published in the GitHub repository ShaishavMaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills (55 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 205 tokens to every session and 3,313 once invoked, about $0.0008 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
research-manager
Use this when starting a new research project or managing a complex, multi-step research workflow.
academic-writing
You must use this when producing any research prose — literature reviews, syntheses, analyses, methodology descriptions, discussion sections, abstracts, or any written output intended for an academic audience.
systematic-review
You must use this when conducting PRISMA-standard systematic reviews, protocol development, or Risk of Bias assessment.
hypothesis-testing
You must use this when formulating testable hypotheses, designing experimental controls, or defining falsification criteria.
multi-source-investigation
You must use this when investigating complex claims across diverse sources or fact-checking contradictory information.
peer-review
You must use this when critiquing academic manuscripts, evaluating methodological rigor, or providing structured reviewer feedback.