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 preflight-checkgit 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/preflight-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/preflight-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/preflight-check/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/preflight-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/preflight-check.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 | $0.00212 | $0.02460 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00085 | $0.00984 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00042 | $0.00492 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00246 |
Grade B, and why
preflight-check scanned grade B with 1 finding 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.
Subtle steeringmediumPrompt injection
Instructions that bias recommendations or shape behaviour without the user noticing.
- A clean preflight is necessary, not sufficient — never tell the user the How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 177 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Preflight Check
Run a deterministic desk-reject lint over a LaTeX submission before the authors hit "submit". Venues explicitly desk-reject — without review — for page-limit violations, template tampering, anonymization leaks, and missing mandatory sections. Every one of those is machine-checkable from the source. This skill catches them while there is still time to fix them.
When to use
- "Is my paper ready to submit to NeurIPS / SIGSPATIAL / CHI / ...?"
- "Check my paper for desk-reject risks" / "run a preflight"
- "Did I anonymize this properly?" / "double-blind check"
- "Am I over the page limit?" / "is my template compliant?"
- Right after
tailor-to-venue, and always before any actual submission.
Inputs
- The main
.texfile of the submission (the one with\documentclass).\input/\includefiles are followed automatically. - A venue profile:
venues/conferences/<venue>-<year>.yml(schema invenues/schema.yml). If the venue has no profile yet, create one first withparse-cfp(or copy the nearest family file and fill it in). - Optional but strongly recommended: a compiled
.logor.pdfnext to the.tex(same basename) so the page-count risk check can run.
Process
-
Resolve the venue profile. Find the matching file under
venues/conferences/. Confirm the year matches the target deadline cycle. Ask the user which track they are submitting to — page limits differ per track (e.g. SIGSPATIAL Research = 10 pages excl. references, Demo = 4 incl.). Sanity-check the merged profile with:python3 scripts/venue_profile.py venues/conferences/<venue>.yml --track <name> -
Re-verify critical facts against the live CFP — mandatory. Profiles are a starting point, never ground truth; a stale page limit causes the exact desk reject this skill exists to prevent. Fetch the profile's
cfp_urland confirm: page limit + what it excludes, blind level, template invocation, required sections, and the deadline. If anything differs, update the profile YAML first and say so in the report.
What ships with it
9 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.
- references/desk-reject-triggers.md 9.5 KB
- references/manual-checks.md 3.6 KB
- scripts/check_abstract.py 6.8 KB runs code
- scripts/check_anonymization.py 10 KB runs code
- scripts/check_sections.py 7.5 KB runs code
- scripts/check_template.py 12 KB runs code
- scripts/run_preflight.py 3.8 KB runs code
- scripts/texlib.py 11 KB runs code
- scripts/venue_profile.py 12 KB runs code
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 · 177 lines · 212 tokens per session scan B 12d16fa677a8
preflight-check 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 212 tokens to every session and 2,460 once invoked, about $0.0008 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (subtle steering). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
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.
quantitative-analysis
You must use this when selecting statistical tests, interpreting effect sizes, or conducting power analysis.
research-synthesis
You must use this when merging findings from multiple studies into a coherent narrative with grounded evidence.
literature-review
You must use this when synthesizing existing knowledge, identifying research gaps, or tracing the evolution of scientific ideas.