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 refactor-structuregit 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/refactor-structure)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/refactor-structure"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/refactor-structure/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-structure"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/refactor-structure.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 | $0.00214 | $0.02526 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00107 | $0.01263 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00043 | $0.00505 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00253 |
Grade A, and why
refactor-structure 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 11d 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 — 193 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Refactor Structure
Fix the architecture of the argument, not its words. A paper can be grammatical, on-template, and within the page limit and still fail because the story is assembled in the wrong order, a section doesn't do its job, the introduction promises things the body never delivers, or the conclusion outruns the evidence. This skill diagnoses those problems and produces a restructuring plan — move / merge / split / cut, with the reasoning for each — that the author approves before a single section is rewritten.
It plans and (on approval) executes the moves. It does not reword sentences
(that is polish-prose) and it does not fit the paper to a venue's rules
(that is tailor-to-venue).
When to use
- "The structure feels off" / "it doesn't flow" / "reorganize my paper".
- Reviewers said: hard to follow, disorganized, the story is unclear, the contribution is buried, related work is in the wrong place, a section doesn't belong.
- The intro over-promises (claims a proof / user study / ablation the body doesn't contain), or the conclusion claims something never evidenced.
- Redundant sections (two Background sections), or one section doing two jobs (Results carrying Threats-to-Validity).
Not for: sentence wording / de-AI-ifying (polish-prose), page limits /
templates / track fit (tailor-to-venue), the Related Work section's content
(draft-related-work), or whether the citations are real (verify-citations).
Inputs
- The draft: main
.texfile (the script follows\input/\include). - Optional: the paper's intended contribution list and target paper type, from
.paper-memory/profile.ymlif present (a theory paper and an empirical paper have different expected arcs). If absent, ask the author for the one-sentence claim and the contribution bullets.
Process
1. Read the structure, don't re-read the paper
Run the bundled extractor to get the skeleton on one screen:
python3 skills/refactor-structure/scripts/outline_extract.py <main.tex>
What ships with it
3 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 193 lines · 214 tokens per session scan A adffacddcf4c
refactor-structure 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 214 tokens to every session and 2,526 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…
aaai-submission
Use when auditing an AAAI main technical track submission for OpenReview readiness, double-blind anonymity, page limits, reproducibility checklist, supplementary material, author limits, multiple-submission policy, and AAAI AI-use policy compliance.
acl-author-response
Use when drafting an ACL author response inside an ACL Rolling Review cycle on OpenReview, covering the response window before meta-review, reviewer discussion dynamics, score-change strategy, flagging review issues to the area chair, anonymity rules, and deciding between responding now versus revising for a later ARR…
acl-camera-ready
Use when preparing an accepted ACL main-conference or Findings paper for camera-ready, covering the extra content page, de-anonymization and acknowledgements, AI-assistance disclosure, keeping the Limitations section, ACL Anthology metadata and CC BY 4.0 publication, meta-review-driven edits, and presentation-mode…
acl-related-work
Use when positioning an ACL submission against the NLP literature, covering ACL Anthology citation practice, arXiv-versus-published version citation, concurrent LLM-era preprints, prior-cycle ARR resubmission overlap, anonymity-preserving self-citation, and the fast-moving baseline problem in computational linguistics.
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…