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 shubham0704/claude-skills --skill rigorous-paper-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shubham0704/claude-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/shubham0704/claude-skills/rigorous-paper-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shubham0704/claude-skills/rigorous-paper-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shubham0704/claude-skills/rigorous-paper-reviewer/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/shubham0704/claude-skills/rigorous-paper-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shubham0704/claude-skills/rigorous-paper-reviewer.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 | $0.00128 | $0.02814 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00051 | $0.01126 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00563 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00281 |
Grade A, and why
rigorous-paper-reviewer 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 17d 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 — 281 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the technical reviewer and verification editor.
Your job is to separate four things clearly:
- what is present
- what is missing
- what is inconsistent
- what may be mathematically wrong but needs human checking
Never blur these categories.
Review procedure
0) Comparing revisions
For before/after or reviewer-panel work, follow the shared comparison protocol. Review frozen versions read-only, without the author's preferred answer. Report content first, flow second, then Before/After/Tie/Neither with reasons and the strongest counterargument. Distinguish pre-existing defects from new regressions. Use the comparison fields in the report template; retain review limits and disagreements. Comparative reporting takes precedence over the generic report order below. A review request alone does not authorize edits or delegation.
1) Run the static verifier first
If a LaTeX project is present, run the verifier script:
python3 ~/.claude/skills/rigorous-paper-reviewer/scripts/verify_latex_paper.py <path-to-main-tex-or-project-dir>
Use the verifier as triage, not as proof of correctness. It checks:
- duplicate/undefined labels and refs
- document-kind-aware section structure (conference paper vs theory note)
- theorem vs proof count balance
- figure/table caption and label completeness
- roadmap and contributions signposting
- complexity and convergence language presence
- project review briefs and discourse-graph tooling when available
2) Review in ordered passes
Always review in this order:
- structural pass
- notation pass
- method-flow / reproducibility pass
- theorem / proof pass
- numerical-analysis pass
- complexity / efficiency pass
- experiments / figures pass
- coherence and cross-reference pass
- reader-state / discourse graph pass
- simplicity / readability pass
3) Structural pass
Check using Glob and Read:
- title matches actual contribution
- abstract contains gap + method + strongest result
- introduction has contributions and roadmap
- section order is logical
- appendix content is referenced from main text
What ships with it
7 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.
- 17d ago Changed · +11 lines c3fd84a7f123
- 1mo ago Changed · +13 lines 15e1710b061a
- 1mo ago First seen · 257 lines · 128 tokens per session scan A a2acab74409a
rigorous-paper-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository shubham0704/claude-skills (2 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 128 tokens to every session and 2,814 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
thesis-control
Use when AI-assisted thesis or manuscript edits risk claim drift, scope creep, loss of intended use, experiment-role promotion, or repeated revisions that fail to converge; provides author-intent control, lightweight or strict contracts, drift audits, revision escalation, and human gates.
manuscript-reframe
Reframe report-like academic drafts into paper-form scientific arguments while preserving or explicitly renegotiating author intent; requires an approved old-versus-proposed spine, evidence and argument baselines, analysis-role control, and post-edit drift review.
running-cluster-experiments
Use when planning, budgeting, submitting or resuming a multi-job experiment campaign on a Slurm/HPC cluster — sizing walltime, shaping jobs and arrays, deciding what to submit first, or after a job hit its walltime, produced no results, silently ran the wrong configuration, or got the wrong number of GPUs.
explaining-derivations
Use when a proof or derivation needs to be made explicit step by step — expanding a paper's algebra for a reader without formal mathematical training, producing a worked companion document, or establishing whether a derivation can be justified at all. Triggers on "explain this derivation", "walk me through this…
self-surveying-literature
Audit a research paper draft (LaTeX sources + .bib) for related work it should cite but does not, above all close prior work that undermines its novelty claims. Searches Semantic Scholar, arXiv, DBLP and Crossref, follows citation graphs, verifies every hit, and produces a prioritized, evidence-backed report plus…
paper-writer
Medical/scientific paper writing workflow skill. Manages the full pipeline from literature search to submission-ready manuscript. Creates and manages a project directory with IMRAD-format section files, literature matrix, reference management, and quality checklists. Supports both English and Japanese papers.…