Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ShaishavMaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skillsnpx agentmods add skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/refactor-research-codeWrote 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/refactor-research-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/refactor-research-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/refactor-research-code/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/refactor-research-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/refactor-research-code.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 | $0.00060 | $0.03265 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.01632 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00653 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00327 |
Grade A, and why
refactor-research-code 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 — 239 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactor Research Code
Take a research repo from "works on my machine" to a clean, documented, re-runnable public release — without changing a single number the paper reports. Research code accretes dead experiment branches, hardcoded paths, magic hyperparameters, an undocumented "run this file, then that one" ritual, and identifying breadcrumbs. This skill removes that cruft and gives the repo a sensible layout, but it treats result preservation as the prime directive: it classifies every proposed change as safe (mechanical, behavior-preserving) or ask-first (could move the numbers), and it never touches an ask-first item without the author's explicit say-so.
It is not generic refactoring (no perf rewrites, no "modernize the API," no restructuring for its own sake). The only goal is release readiness with identical behavior. When a "cleanup" would change what the code computes, the right move is to flag it and ask — not to make the repo prettier at the cost of the paper's claims.
When to use
- "Clean up / refactor my research code for release." / "It's a mess — get it publishable."
- "Remove the dead experiment branches and commented-out code."
- "Separate config from code." / "These hyperparameters are hardcoded everywhere."
- "Make my runs deterministic / re-runnable." / "Document the entrypoint."
- "Give the repo a clear layout." / "Strip my identity for double-blind."
- Before
test-research-code(which adds tests/seeds/env) andprepare-artifacts(which packages and hosts for a badge) — this is the structural cleanup that comes first.
What this is NOT (route elsewhere)
| You want… | Use instead |
|---|---|
| Add smoke tests, pin seeds, capture the environment | test-research-code |
| Package + archival DOI/SWHID + badge taxonomy + appendix | prepare-artifacts |
| Deep double-blind sweep of the paper + reversible de-anon | anonymize-paper |
| Confirm the produced numbers match the paper's tables | verify-results |
| Reorganize the paper's sections/argument | refactor-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 · 239 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A 46cc91e92790
refactor-research-code 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 60 tokens to every session and 3,265 once invoked, about $0.0003 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…