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 ssmurfgg04-gif/context-m --skill literature-surveygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ssmurfgg04-gif/context-mWrote 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/ssmurfgg04-gif/context-m/literature-survey)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ssmurfgg04-gif/context-m/literature-survey"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ssmurfgg04-gif/context-m/literature-survey/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/ssmurfgg04-gif/context-m/literature-survey"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ssmurfgg04-gif/context-m/literature-survey.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 | $0.00064 | $0.02061 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.01030 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00412 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00206 |
Grade A, and why
literature-survey 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 — 157 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Literature Survey
Overview
End-to-end literature survey builder. Single stage, full quality from the start. The agent (Claude Code / Cursor / Aider / Codex / …) does the entire build using its own tools (WebFetch, WebSearch, Write, Bash). This SKILL is procedure + reference playbooks + LaTeX template — no Python runtime, no LLM SDK.
The substantive work is decomposed into reference playbooks under references/:
| Reference | Topic |
|---|---|
references/00-incremental-execution.md |
how to actually do this without losing work: batch sizes, persistence, resume — read first |
references/01-bibliography-expansion.md |
grow bibliography.bib to 60+ real entries (100+ recommended) via WebFetch (no memory) |
references/02-survey-figures.md |
taxonomy / timeline / coverage-matrix / area-map figures |
references/03-survey-section-playbook.md |
per-section structure for survey-shaped papers |
references/04-layout-discipline.md |
tables, figures, floats, cross-refs, author + disclosure footnote |
references/05-quality-gate.md |
self-check before delivery |
Read the relevant reference before writing, not after. The full pass does not fit in a single turn — references/00-incremental-execution.md is the only execution mode that completes.
When to Use
- User asks for a "survey" / "review" on a specific topic.
- User has a research topic and wants a structured map of the field with citations.
- User needs background reading curated for a thesis chapter or grant section.
When NOT to Use
- User wants original research with experiments →
paper-writer. - User wants only an outline / topic exploration →
research-explorer. - User wants experiment code →
experiment-suite. - Topic is too broad (e.g., "all of AI") — narrow it before starting.
Workflow
Step 1 — Understand the topic and scope
Confirm with the user:
- Topic — specific research area (e.g., "federated learning in healthcare"). If too broad, narrow it first.
- Scope — broad survey of a field vs. focused review of a sub-area.
- Citation budget — minimum 60 unique entries; aim for 100+ (push higher for a broad survey).
- Language — default Chinese in conversation; the LaTeX paper is English unless requested otherwise.
What ships with it
10 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.
- references/00-incremental-execution.md 7.5 KB
- references/01-bibliography-expansion.md 12 KB
- references/02-survey-figures.md 20 KB
- references/03-survey-section-playbook.md 8.5 KB
- references/04-layout-discipline.md 7.4 KB
- references/05-quality-gate.md 13 KB
- templates/survey/compile.sh 769 B runs code
- templates/survey/figures/.gitkeep 0 B
- templates/survey/main.tex 2.0 KB
- templates/survey/sections/.gitkeep 0 B
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 · 157 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A d2a7e39d2f08
literature-survey is a skill published in the GitHub repository ssmurfgg04-gif/context-m (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 2,061 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
ai-style
A Chinese-language writing guide for producing or revising reader-facing text such as product announcements, public-account articles, emails, and README files. It focuses on reducing patterns that make writing sound machine-generated.
triage
A task-routing guide that identifies goals, dependencies, and acceptance conditions before work begins. It orders work as research, calculation or execution, and writing.
causal
Analyze cause-and-effect relationships in the Semantica knowledge graph — causal chains, interventions, counterfactuals, and causal influence scores.
coding
A coding guide for writing and running Python programs in a sandbox. It requires scripts to be small and reproducible, with their actual output or errors reported.
emem-field-tokens
Get a native-resolution raster field over an area from emem, or a field over time, as a signed, verifiable artifact rather than a set of per-cell scalars. Use when the user needs the actual grid of values over an area of interest (a world model input, an NDVI/band drape, change analysis over a scene window, exportable…
start
Guided end-to-end QA workflow. Chains test planning, ticket reviews, and test case generation in sequence, pausing after each phase for SDT review. Resumes from where it left off if interrupted. The main entry point for new epics. Use when: "start", "begin workflow", "qa workflow", "guided qa", "new epic". Do NOT use…