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/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/tobiasblask/open-paper-machine/audit-engine"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tobiasblask/open-paper-machine/audit-engine.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 | $0.00109 | $0.04074 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00044 | $0.01630 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 1mo 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.
- 1mo 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 (19 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 109 tokens to every session and 4,074 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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…
security-architecture-review
Reviews a design or change for security before it ships — authentication and authorization, data handling, secrets, dependencies, and the secure-development practices around it. Use this to review an architecture or pull request for security, set secure coding standards, choose or tune SAST and DAST tooling, assess a…
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
one-way-door
Flags irreversible decisions before commit. Use for data models, infra, auth boundaries, API contracts, event schemas, CI/CD.
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.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.