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 TobiasBlask/open-paper-machine --skill audit-enginegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TobiasBlask/open-paper-machineWrote 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/tobiasblask/open-paper-machine/audit-engine)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tobiasblask/open-paper-machine/audit-engine"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tobiasblask/open-paper-machine/audit-engine.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 | $0.00109 | $0.04074 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00055 | $0.02037 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00815 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00407 |
Grade A, and why
audit-engine 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 7d 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 — 416 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Orchestration Log: When this skill is activated, append a log entry to
outputs/orchestration_log.md:### Skill Activation: Audit Engine **Timestamp:** [current date/time] **Actor:** AI Agent (audit-engine) **Input:** [paper + repo being audited] **Output:** [brief summary — e.g., "Audited 18 claims: 12 CONFIRMED, 3 PARTIAL, 2 MISSING, 1 MISMATCH"]
Audit Engine
Core Principle
Papers make claims. Code embodies what was actually done. This engine systematically checks whether the two agree. For every empirical or technical claim in the paper — datasets used, models trained, metrics reported, hyperparameters set, ablations run — the engine locates supporting evidence in the linked repository and classifies the match.
This is the complement to verification-engine, which checks citations against
external sources. Audit-engine checks the paper's own claims against the paper's
own code. Together they cover both failure modes of LLM-assisted writing: mis-cited
prior work and unsupported own-work claims.
Inspired by the /audit command in the Feynman research agent (Companion AI, 2026),
adapted to the IS/CS methodological style of this plugin.
When to Activate
- User says "audit the paper", "check paper vs. code", "verify my experiments", "reproducibility audit", "does the code match what I wrote"
- Before submitting a paper with an accompanying code release
- Before open-sourcing the repo of a published paper
- When reviewing someone else's paper + artifact
- As optional Phase 7.5 of the paper machine pipeline (after verify-citations, before prepare-submission)
When NOT to Activate
- The paper has no code artifact (pure theory, position paper, qualitative study without computational analysis) → say so and exit
- The user wants to verify citations → activate
verification-engineinstead - The user wants to check writing quality → activate the writing-engine
/analyze-writingcommand
Inputs
Required:
- Paper source —
paper.tex,draft.md, or explicit$ARGUMENTSpath - Code repository — one of:
- Local path (
./experiments/,~/repos/myproject) - GitHub URL (clone or use
gh repo view/WebFetchon raw files) - Archive link (Zenodo, OSF) — ask user to download locally first
- Local path (
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 416 lines · 109 tokens per session scan A fee725c48cf6
audit-engine is a skill published in the GitHub repository TobiasBlask/open-paper-machine (18 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 109 tokens to every session and 4,074 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
gemini
Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini…
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
phx-pr-review
Address feedback left on a GitHub pull request: fetch unresolved review threads, make agreed Elixir/Phoenix code fixes, reply, and resolve. Use for a PR URL/number or reviewer comments. NOT for pre-PR review, findings triage, or CI monitoring.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
challenge
Challenge mode reviews - rigorous questioning before approving changes. Use when you want thorough scrutiny of Ecto changes, LiveView events, OTP designs, or PR readiness.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.