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 soupandpsy/amazing-psycoder-skills --skill psy-exp-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/soupandpsy/amazing-psycoder-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/soupandpsy/amazing-psycoder-skills/psy-exp-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/soupandpsy/amazing-psycoder-skills/psy-exp-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/soupandpsy/amazing-psycoder-skills/psy-exp-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/soupandpsy/amazing-psycoder-skills/psy-exp-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/soupandpsy/amazing-psycoder-skills/psy-exp-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00112 | $0.07744 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.03872 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.01549 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00774 |
Grade A, and why
psy-exp-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 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 — 504 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Psychological Experiment Code Reviewer
Version
v1.4.0 — unified evidence-gated contract, 2026-07-23; Studio deterministic-runtime authority amendment, 2026-08-08. Sub-skill of amazing-psycoder.
Purpose
Assess the quality and readiness of a psychological experiment — from early design idea through completed code. The reviewer adapts its mode to the input available. It never fabricates a readiness judgment beyond what the input supports.
This is the final mandatory gate in the experiment development chain. It evaluates code generated by psy-exp-coder and enters a check → fix → re-check loop with the coder until zero Critical and zero Major issues remain. Packaging for runtime testing may then proceed; data collection still requires observed target-machine smoke-test evidence and a collection-ready label.
What Collection-Readiness Evidence Must Show
Static inspection can assess structure and risk, but runtime claims require observed target-machine evidence. A collection-ready verdict must show:
- Runs without errors — launches, displays stimuli, accepts responses, saves data, exits cleanly
- Collects correct data — all required columns present, RT measured from correct origin, accuracy coded correctly
- Recovers safely from interruption — cleanup and durable checkpoints are verified by an interrupted-run test
- Data is analyzable — output format matches data-recording standard, NaN/timeout handled correctly
- Experiment logic is correct — implementation matches the confirmed standalone config or frozen Studio ExperimentModel@4, response mapping is unambiguous, and declared condition constraints are verified
Each item must be backed by the structured RuntimeEvidence records in references/review-report-schema.md. A user statement such as “it ran fine” without target details and inspectable evidence is useful triage information but cannot become a passing evidence record. Browser submissions are stored as user_attested; only an authenticated target runner (machine_verified) or authorized inspection workflow (reviewer_verified) can close the collection gate. The backend hashes every evidence file, appends rather than overwrites records, and derives smoke_test_status; the Reviewer does not emit that summary field.
What ships with it
5 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 · 504 lines · 112 tokens per session scan A a819b1c5fb7c
psy-exp-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository soupandpsy/amazing-psycoder-skills (33 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 7,744 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
senior-engineering-partner
A strict code reviewer, pair programmer, debugger, and mentor for Python, Bash, Google Apps Script, JavaScript, and Swift/Apple platforms. Use when writing, reviewing, debugging, planning, or securing code, or for senior-level rigor, a security review, or mentoring. Mode triggers — REVIEW: (critique + refactor)…
code-standards
C# coding standards and code review. Use when the user mentions coding standards or conventions, writing code to spec, defining standards for a project, cohesion and coupling, design pattern selection, or naming conventions, or wants a code review on the design and standards dimension.
skill-doctor
Audit a skill against Pocock's write-a-skill spec and return a prioritized, diagnose-only fix report.
research-methods
Principal-level research methodology — primary vs secondary sources, quantitative + qualitative + mixed methods, literature review, evidence hierarchies, experimental design, survey + interview craft, bias identification, statistical inference, reproducibility, citation discipline, and the discipline that separates "I…
clinical-data-patterns
Principal-level clinical data interoperability — FHIR R5, USCDI v4, HL7 v2 / CDA / CCDA, SMART on FHIR + SMART Health Cards / Links, ICD-10 / SNOMED-CT / LOINC / RxNorm / CPT terminologies, DICOM imaging, telehealth, mHealth (HealthKit / Health Connect). Sister to hipaa-compliance (regulation) and security…
structural-basics
Structural engineering literacy — loads (dead / live / wind / seismic / snow), materials (steel / concrete / timber / masonry), structural systems (frame / shear-wall / braced / shell / cable), and code regimes (Eurocode, AISC, ACI, IBC, NBCC). Activates on AEC + civil work to identify what's negotiable, what isn't…