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 agentmods add skills/tenureai/phd-zero/research-plannpx skills add TenureAI/PhD-Zero --skill research-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TenureAI/PhD-ZeroWrote 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/tenureai/phd-zero/research-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tenureai/phd-zero/research-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tenureai/phd-zero/research-plan.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00093 | $0.02020 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.01010 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00404 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00202 |
Grade A, and why
research-plan 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 6d 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 — 283 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Research Plan
Mission
Turn an early-stage research idea into a concrete, execution-ready plan with clear experiments, implementation prerequisites, and expected results.
Interaction Policy
Once the user has chosen a direction, stop asking frequent clarification questions unless a missing detail would materially change the plan.
Default behavior after direction is fixed:
- Infer reasonable assumptions.
- Write the full detailed plan in one pass.
- Ask follow-up questions only for hard blockers or high-risk ambiguity.
Do not turn normal planning into a back-and-forth questionnaire.
Delivery Policy
Separate the full planning artifact from the chat summary.
- The full plan should still be detailed and complete.
- In the CLI chat, do not dump the entire long report unless the user explicitly asks for it.
- In the CLI chat, provide a concise summary focused on:
- key innovation points
- experiment plan
- code base and file requirements
- data or workload requirements
- expected results
- major risks
- Keep progress updates short while drafting.
When To Use
Use this skill when the user asks for any of the following:
- A research plan or proposal.
- A project plan before implementation.
- A paper idea breakdown into experiments.
- An ablation or evaluation roadmap.
- A study design for a general CS research project.
Non-Negotiable Output Sections
Every final plan must include all sections below. Do not omit a section just because the user did not mention it.
Problem Definition- What problem is being solved?
- Why does it matter?
- What exact question will the study answer?
Research Focus- State the core research points.
- Separate primary question, secondary questions, and boundary conditions.
Innovation Points- List specific novelty claims.
- Compare against likely baselines or common approaches.
- Distinguish true novelty from engineering cleanup.
Experiment Plan- Enumerate the exact experiments to run.
- Include baseline, main experiment, ablation, robustness, and error-analysis experiments when relevant.
- For each experiment: hypothesis, setup, variables, metrics, and success signal.
How To Do ItCode Base: what kind of repository or framework is needed.Related Files: configs, manifests, experiment scripts, evaluation scripts, request templates when needed, documentation, metadata, report templates, and logs.Data / Workloads / Inputs: required datasets, workloads, traces, corpora, benchmarks, or input sources; plus split policy, access constraints, and preprocessing if needed.
Expected Results- What outcomes are expected qualitatively and quantitatively.
- What negative or null outcomes are still informative.
Risk And Fallback- Technical risks, data risks, evaluation risks, and fallback routes.
Deliverables- What artifacts should exist at the end.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 283 lines · 93 tokens per session scan A e886c6145abb
research-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository TenureAI/PhD-Zero (52 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 2,020 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
auto-paper-improvement-loop
Autonomously improve a generated paper via GPT-5.4 xhigh review → implement fixes → recompile, for 2 rounds. Use when user says "改论文", "improve paper", "论文润色循环", "auto improve", or wants to iteratively polish a generated paper.
proof-checker
Rigorous mathematical proof verification and fixing workflow. Reads a LaTeX proof, identifies gaps via cross-model review (Codex GPT-5.4 xhigh), fixes each gap with full derivations, re-reviews, and generates an audit report. Use when user says "检查证明", "verify proof", "proof check", "审证明", "check this proof", or wants…
citation-audit
Zero-context verification that every bibliographic entry in the paper is real, correctly attributed, and used in a context the cited paper actually supports. Uses a fresh cross-model reviewer with web/DBLP/arXiv lookup to catch hallucinated authors, wrong years, fabricated venues, version mismatches, and wrong-context…
grant-proposal
Draft a structured grant proposal from research ideas and literature. Supports KAKENHI (Japan), NSF (US), NSFC (China, including 面上/青年/优青/杰青/海外优青/重点), ERC (EU), DFG (Germany), SNSF (Switzerland), ARC (Australia), NWO (Netherlands), and generic formats. Use when user says "write grant", "grant proposal", "申請書", "write…
paper-illustration
Generate publication-quality AI illustrations for academic papers using Gemini image generation. Creates architecture diagrams, method illustrations with Claude-supervised iterative refinement loop. Use when user says "生成图表", "画架构图", "AI绘图", "paper illustration", "generate diagram", or needs visual figures for papers.
paper-navigator
Find and read academic papers: disambiguate queries, discover papers (search, citation traversal, recommendations, arXiv monitoring, trending, GitHub search), evaluate (TLDR, citations, code, SOTA), and read with structured analysis (3-level strategy). Use when: finding papers, reading a paper, related work, citation…