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 silverstein/claude-scientific-skills-desktop --skill peer-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/silverstein/claude-scientific-skills-desktopWrote 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/silverstein/claude-scientific-skills-desktop/peer-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/silverstein/claude-scientific-skills-desktop/peer-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/silverstein/claude-scientific-skills-desktop/peer-review/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/silverstein/claude-scientific-skills-desktop/peer-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/silverstein/claude-scientific-skills-desktop/peer-review.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 | $0.00035 | $0.02856 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.01428 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00571 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00286 |
Grade A, and why
peer-review 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 9d 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 — 376 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Scientific Critical Evaluation and Peer Review
Overview
Peer review is a systematic process for evaluating scientific manuscripts. Assess methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, and reporting standards. Apply this skill for manuscript and grant review across disciplines with constructive, rigorous evaluation.
When to Use This Skill
This skill should be used when:
- Conducting peer review of scientific manuscripts for journals
- Evaluating grant proposals and research applications
- Assessing methodology and experimental design rigor
- Reviewing statistical analyses and reporting standards
- Evaluating reproducibility and data availability
- Checking compliance with reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA)
- Providing constructive feedback on scientific writing
Peer Review Workflow
Conduct peer review systematically through the following stages, adapting depth and focus based on the manuscript type and discipline.
Stage 1: Initial Assessment
Begin with a high-level evaluation to determine the manuscript's scope, novelty, and overall quality.
Key Questions:
- What is the central research question or hypothesis?
- What are the main findings and conclusions?
- Is the work scientifically sound and significant?
- Is the work appropriate for the intended venue?
- Are there any immediate major flaws that would preclude publication?
Output: Brief summary (2-3 sentences) capturing the manuscript's essence and initial impression.
Stage 2: Detailed Section-by-Section Review
Conduct a thorough evaluation of each manuscript section, documenting specific concerns and strengths.
Abstract and Title
- Accuracy: Does the abstract accurately reflect the study's content and conclusions?
- Clarity: Is the title specific, accurate, and informative?
- Completeness: Are key findings and methods summarized appropriately?
- Accessibility: Is the abstract comprehensible to a broad scientific audience?
Introduction
- Context: Is the background information adequate and current?
- Rationale: Is the research question clearly motivated and justified?
- Novelty: Is the work's originality and significance clearly articulated?
- Literature: Are relevant prior studies appropriately cited?
- Objectives: Are research aims/hypotheses clearly stated?
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 376 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 4ee7a6517fed
peer-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository silverstein/claude-scientific-skills-desktop (22 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 2,856 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
bio-ortholog-inference
Pull pre-computed ortholog calls from public databases (OrthoDB, Ensembl Compara, OMA browser, eggNOG, PANTHER, KEGG Orthology, HomoloGene) via their REST APIs. Use when orthologs are already curated upstream, when the question is "what is the X ortholog of Y" rather than "how to infer orthology de novo", when…
admet_genetic
ADMET-guided genetic molecule optimization workflow from seed SMILES; use when the agent needs to build or run an RDKit/SA-Score/ADMET-AI GA pipeline for molecule optimization, enforce molecule lineage logs, render optimization-history HTML dashboards, and write candidate triage reports.
bioprobench
Score an LLM's biological-protocol reasoning on the BioProBench benchmark: protocol QA, step ordering, error detection, protocol generation, and LLM-judged error reasoning; or generate the responses.
alphafold2
Predict protein structure for monomers and multimers with AlphaFold2 via the ColabFold runner (Mirdita et al. 2022, github.com/sokrypton/ColabFold; AlphaFold2 Jumper et al. 2021). Reach for this skill to fold a sequence or complex with the AF2/AF2-Multimer evoformer, to validate designed sequences by self-consistency…
bio-alignment-msa-parsing
Parse and analyze multiple sequence alignments using Biopython. Extract sequences, identify conserved regions, analyze gaps, work with annotations, and manipulate alignment data for downstream analysis. Use when parsing or manipulating multiple sequence alignments.
bio-causal-genomics-heritability-partitioning
Estimates SNP heritability and partitions it across functional annotations, cell types, and loci from GWAS summary statistics or individual-level genotypes. Implements LDSC, stratified LDSC with the baseline-LD model, Finucane 2018 cell-type prioritization, LDAK SumHer, HDL, HESS local heritability, BOLT-REML…