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 voidful/academic-skills --skill paper-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/voidful/academic-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/voidful/academic-skills/paper-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/voidful/academic-skills/paper-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/voidful/academic-skills/paper-review/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/voidful/academic-skills/paper-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/voidful/academic-skills/paper-review.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 | $0.00168 | $0.04616 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00067 | $0.01846 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00923 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00462 |
Grade A, and why
paper-review 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 — 453 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
paper-review：學術論文審稿技能
概述
本技能提供一套系統化的學術論文審稿流程，適用於頂級會議（如 NeurIPS、ICML、ICLR、ACL、CVPR 等）與期刊的同儕審查。整個流程分為四個步驟，前三步以繁體中文進行深度分析，第四步產出符合會議格式的英文正式審稿。
核心理念
- 嚴謹但公平：審稿的目的是提升學術品質，而非打壓作者
- 具體而非模糊：所有批評都應指向具體段落、公式或實驗
- 建設性導向：指出問題的同時提供改進方向
- 多維度評估：不以單一標準論斷，全面考量論文各面向
四步驟審稿流程
總覽
| 步驟 | 名稱 | 語言 | 目的 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | 批判性審查 | 繁體中文 | 深入閱讀，找出優缺點 |
| Step 2 | 分數預測 | 繁體中文 | 各維度評分與整體分數預測 |
| Step 3 | 要點精煉 | 繁體中文 | 將發現整理為結構化要點 |
| Step 4 | 正式審稿 | 英文 | 產出符合會議格式的正式 review |
Step 1：批判性審查（繁體中文）
目標
以批判性思維深入閱讀論文，系統性地識別優點與缺點。此步驟為後續所有分析的基礎。
執行方式
-
第一遍：快速瀏覽（5 分鐘思維）
- 閱讀標題、摘要、導論、結論
- 瀏覽圖表與表格
- 形成初步印象：這篇論文在做什麼？聲稱了什麼貢獻？
-
第二遍：仔細閱讀（30 分鐘思維）
- 逐節閱讀，標記不清楚的地方
- 檢查數學推導的正確性
- 驗證實驗設置的合理性
- 確認 claims 是否有充分支持
-
第三遍：批判性分析（15 分鐘思維）
- 對照五大審查維度逐一評估
- 識別是否符合五大退稿模式
- 思考 missing baselines、missing ablations、missing analysis
輸出格式
## Step 1：批判性審查
### 論文基本資訊
- 標題：
- 作者：
- 投稿會議/期刊：
- 領域：
### 初步印象
（一段話總結論文做了什麼、聲稱了什麼）
### 優點列表
1. [S1] （具體描述優點，引用論文段落或頁碼）
2. [S2] ...
### 缺點列表
1. [W1] （具體描述缺點，說明為什麼這是問題）
2. [W2] ...
### 疑問列表
1. [Q1] （需要作者釐清的問題）
2. [Q2] ...
### 初步判斷
（對論文品質的初步判斷，包含是否達到會議門檻的直覺）
注意事項
- 優點和缺點都要具體，避免「寫得不錯」「實驗不足」這類空泛評語
- 每個優缺點都應該能對應到論文的具體位置
- 疑問列表要區分「真正的疑問」與「修辭性的批評」
- 初步判斷只是直覺，不要被它錨定——後續步驟可能改變結論
Step 2：分數預測（繁體中文）
目標
基於 Step 1 的分析，對論文的五個維度分別評分，並預測整體分數。
五大審查維度
每個維度以 1-5 分評分。詳細評分標準見 references/scoring-rubric.md。
| 維度 | 說明 | 權重參考 |
|---|---|---|
| 貢獻新穎性 (Novelty & Contribution) | 想法是否新穎？貢獻是否足夠？ | 高 |
| 寫作清晰度 (Clarity & Writing) | 論文是否易讀？邏輯是否清晰？ | 中 |
| 實驗嚴謹性 (Experimental Rigor) | 實驗設計是否嚴謹？結果是否可靠？ | 高 |
| 評估完整性 (Evaluation Completeness) | 評估是否全面？是否有遺漏的比較？ | 中高 |
| 方法健全性 (Soundness of Method) | 方法是否正確？假設是否合理？ | 高 |
詳細的維度說明請參考 references/review-dimensions.md。
評分體系
- Overall Score（整體分數）：1-10 分，詳見
references/scoring-rubric.md - Confidence（信心度）：1-5 分，反映審稿者對自身評估的確信程度
- 各維度分數：1-5 分
輸出格式
## Step 2：分數預測
### 各維度評分
| 維度 | 分數 (1-5) | 簡要理由 |
|------|-----------|----------|
| 貢獻新穎性 | X | （一句話理由） |
| 寫作清晰度 | X | （一句話理由） |
| 實驗嚴謹性 | X | （一句話理由） |
| 評估完整性 | X | （一句話理由） |
| 方法健全性 | X | （一句話理由） |
### 整體分數預測
- **Overall Score**: X / 10
- **Confidence**: X / 5
### 分數推理
（解釋為什麼給這個整體分數，各維度如何影響最終判斷）
### 與接受門檻的比較
（討論這篇論文相對於目標會議的接受門檻如何，是 clear accept、borderline 還是 clear reject）
What ships with it
6 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 453 lines · 168 tokens per session scan A 8c1a5f69640c
paper-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository voidful/academic-skills (139 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 168 tokens to every session and 4,616 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
hr-onboarding
A new-hire onboarding plan as a single page — first week schedule, buddy + manager intro, learning track, equipment checklist, and "you're set when…" outcomes. Use when the brief mentions "onboarding", "new hire", "first week plan", or "入职".
book-mirror
Take any book (EPUB/PDF), produce a personalized chapter-by-chapter analysis. Each chapter is preserved in detail (The Chapter) and mirrored back to the reader's actual life (The Mirror) using brain context. The mirror observes and resonates — a friend pointing out parallels, NOT a consultant rearranging the reader's…
lean-formalize
Develop and verify a mathematical proof in Lean, continue an incomplete Lean project, or audit whether it proves the original statement. Connect actual inputs to intermediate lemmas, assemble the target theorem, check its transitive axioms, and provide a reproducible handoff. Use when Lean is requested or a specific…
exam-forecast
Analyze past exams from the same professor to surface patterns — subject weighting, recurring issue-spot traps, favored hypo types, policy-vs-doctrine mix — and forecast likely emphases for the upcoming exam. Use when the user says "what's on the exam", "analyze past exams", "predict the exam", or shares past exams.
eli5
Explain research, papers, or technical ideas in plain English with minimal jargon, concrete analogies, and clear takeaways. Use when the user says "ELI5 this", asks for a simple explanation of a paper or research result, wants jargon removed, or asks what something technically dense actually means.
deck-course-module
A course or workshop slide template with persistent learning goals, teaching pages, multiple-choice self-tests, and a wrap-up.