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-surveygit 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-survey)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/draft-survey"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/draft-survey/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-survey"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/draft-survey.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 | $0.00213 | $0.01205 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00106 | $0.00602 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00043 | $0.00241 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00120 |
Grade A, and why
draft-survey 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 12d 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 — 49 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Draft Survey
Two deliverables from one topic: a ranked reading list (what to read, best first, with a one-line why) and a two-column, arXiv-ready survey draft that synthesizes the area in original prose with verified citations. Composes find-papers, verify-citations, study-exemplars, and draft-related-work.
When to use vs. literature-review
literature-reviewbuilds the related-work for your own paper — scoped to your contribution.draft-surveyproduces a standalone survey/review document (a reading list + a publishable 2-column draft) of a whole area. Use it to learn a field fast or to draft a survey paper for arXiv.
Inputs
- The topic (e.g. "geospatial data conflation"), optionally a sub-scope and a target length (default 5–6 two-column pages).
- Optional: a venue/format (default: generic two-column
article, which compiles on arXiv).
Process
- Gather candidates broadly. Run
find-papersacross DBLP + Crossref + Semantic Scholar + arXiv for the topic and its synonyms; then run its citation-graph expansion so seminal anchors and direct lineages are not missed (a survey that omits the foundational papers is a weak survey). - Rank them. Run
python3 scripts/rank_papers.py candidates.json— a composite of normalized citation count, venue tier, recency, and citation-graph centrality (weights documented in references/ranking-criteria.md). Output the ranked reading list: rank, title, authors, year, venue, a citation/impact signal, and a one-line why read this (seminal / survey / SOTA / dataset / contrarian). Keep seminal and recent both represented. - Verify every entry. Route the list through
verify-citationsso each has a real DOI/arXiv id; drop or flag anything unresolved. A survey with a fabricated reference is disqualifying. - Build a taxonomy. Cluster the verified papers into 3–6 themes/sub-problems (the survey's section structure), each with its lineage (foundational → recent).
- Draft the survey, in original prose. Write a two-column
.tex: abstract, introduction (scope + why a survey now), one section per theme (synthesize and contrast methods — never copy source sentences), a cross-cutting comparison (a table helps), open problems / future directions, conclusion, and\bibliography. Every claim cites a verified paper. Target the requested length. - Make it arXiv-ready. Ensure it compiles (
latexmk), uses a portable two-column class, and the.bibis clean. arXiv has no peer-review desk-reject, but it expects a compilable source and a real abstract;preflight-checkcan sanity-check length/structure.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 12d ago First seen · 49 lines · 213 tokens per session scan A 64e9db25b1cc
draft-survey is a skill published in the GitHub repository ShaishavMaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills (42 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 213 tokens to every session and 1,205 once invoked, about $0.0011 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
aaai-reproducibility
Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across…
acl-reproducibility
Use when strengthening reproducibility evidence for an ACL paper reviewed through ACL Rolling Review, covering the Responsible NLP checklist end to end, hyperparameter and compute reporting, prompt and decoding disclosure for LLM experiments, data contamination auditing, variance across runs, and checklist-to-paper…
aaai-experiments
Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.
aaai-topic-selection
Use when deciding whether a project is a strong AAAI submission across its broad AI scope, should be reframed or routed to a dedicated track such as AI for Social Impact or AI Alignment, or should instead go to IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, AISTATS, UAI, ACL, CVPR, KDD, CHI, ICRA, or another specialist venue.
acl-experiments
Use when designing or auditing experiments for an ACL paper, covering tuned LLM baselines, multi-dataset and multilingual evaluation, statistical significance and variance, human evaluation with agreement reporting, contamination and prompt-sensitivity controls, ablations, and error-analysis expectations in NLP…
acmmm-experiments
Use when designing or auditing the experiments of an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) paper — matched baselines per modality, ablations that isolate the cross-modal fusion, user studies or QoE measurement where the claim is subjective, dataset and media licensing, and honest compute reporting, so evidence supports a multimedia…